[Vaillant]

Canada's population estimates: Age and sex


July 1, 2011 (preliminary) (Previous release)

As of July 1, the median age of Canada's population was estimated at 39.9 years, up 0.2 years from the same date a year earlier. The main factors explaining the aging of the Canadian population are fertility rates persistently below the generation replacement level of 2.1 children per woman and an increasing life expectancy.

On July 1, the number of people aged 65 years or older was estimated at 4,973,400 or 14.4% of Canada's population, up 0.3 percentage points from the same date a year earlier. The proportion of seniors will grow more rapidly in the coming years as the first generation of baby boomers are now reaching the age of 65. On the other hand, the proportion of children under the age of 15 has decreased, representing 16.4% of the total population or 5,644,800.
The Atlantic provinces have the highest median age in the country

As of July 1, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest median age in the country (43.8 years) and the highest increase in median age from the same date a year earlier (+0.5 years). The median age in the other Atlantic provinces was also above the national average: 42.2 years in Prince Edward Island, 43.1 years in Nova Scotia and 43.0 years in New Brunswick.

Nova Scotia (16.5%) and New Brunswick (16.2%) also had the highest proportion of the population aged 65 or older. The lowest proportions of children under the age of 15 in the country were in Newfoundland and Labrador (14.8%) and Nova Scotia (14.7%).
Note to readers

Estimates in this release are based on 2006 Census counts adjusted for net census undercoverage to which is added the estimated demographic growth from May 16, 2006 to June 30, 2011.

The 2011 Census population counts will be released on February 8, 2012. Population estimates based on the 2011 Census counts, adjusted for Census net undercoverage, will be available in September 2013 for provinces and territories and in February 2014 for subprovincial areas.

This release mainly focuses on preliminary postcensal population estimates by age and sex as of July 1, 2011. The estimates presented in this release are subject to revision. Future updates could affect the analysis of trends.

Unless otherwise stated, historical comparisons in this analysis relate to the period between July 1, 1971 and July 1, 2011, the period covered by the current system of demographic accounts.

Natural increase is the variation in population size over a given period as a result of the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths.

Net international migration is the variation in population over a given period as a result of movements of population between Canada and other countries that involve a change in the usual place of residence. A distinction is made between immigrants, emigrants, returning emigrants, net temporary emigrants and net non-permanent residents.

Non-permanent residents (also called temporary residents) are people from another country who have a work or study permit, or who are refugee claimants, and family members living in Canada with them.

Median age is the age at which 50% of the population is older and 50% is younger.

Central Canada: Population older in Quebec

As of July 1, Quebec's population was older than that of the country as a whole, with a median age of 41.4 years and 15.7% of the population aged 65 years or older. For the first time, Quebec now has more persons aged 65 and older (1,253,600) than youth under the age of 15 (1,241,700).

Ontario's population was younger than that of Canada on July 1. Its median age was estimated at 39.6 years, while 14.2% of the population was 65 years of age or older.

British Columbia has the oldest population in the West

While the three Prairie provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) each had younger populations than the country as a whole, British Columbia had an older population.

On July 1, the estimated median age in Manitoba declined by 0.1 years from the same date a year earlier to 37.6 years. In Saskatchewan, the estimated median age declined by 0.2 years to 37.3 years. These were the only two provinces in Canada where the median age declined compared with the same date a year earlier. These two provinces also had the highest proportion of children under the age of 15 (18.8% in Manitoba and 19.0% in Saskatchewan).

Alberta had, on July 1, the youngest population among the provinces with a median age of 36.0 years and a proportion of persons 65 years or older of 10.8%. In both cases, these were the lowest among all the provinces.

British Columbia was the only province in the West where the median age was higher than that of the country as a whole. As of July 1, the median age in British Columbia was 41.1 years, while the proportion of persons aged 65 years or older was 15.3%, the highest for the western provinces. It was also the only province in the West where there were fewer children under the age of 15 (684,900) than persons 65 years or older (700,500).
Youngest population in the territories

As of July 1, the youngest population in Canada was in Nunavut, where the median age was 24.8 years. Almost a third (31.5%) of the Nunavut population was under the age of 15, the highest proportion in the country.

The Northwest Territories' population was also younger than the national average, with the median age at 31.8 years and 21.2% of the population under the age of 15. Among the territories, Yukon had the oldest population. Its median age as of July 1 was estimated at 39.2 years and the proportion of persons aged 65 or older at 8.8%.
Population growth slows

On July 1, Canada's population was estimated at 34,482,800, up 356,600, or 1.0%, from the same date in 2010. This was down from the 1.2% gain between July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010.

Population growth varied across the country. In 2010/2011, the western provinces as well as Prince Edward Island and Nunavut all had growth rates above or equal to the national average. The largest provincial increases were in Prince Edward Island (+1.7%) and Alberta (+1.6%). Major components of Canada's population growth for 2010/2011 are presented in table 1.

Available on CANSIM: tables 051-0001, 051-0002, 051-0004, 051-0005, 051-0011 to 051-0013, 051-0018, 051-0019 and 051-0041.

Definitions, data sources and methods: survey number 3604.

The Annual Demographic Estimates: Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2011 (91-215-X, free), is now available from the Key resource module of our website under Publications.

For further information regarding demographic estimates, contact Statistics Canada's National Contact Centre (613-951-8116; toll-free 1-800-263-1136; infostats@statcan.gc.ca), Communications Division.

To enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact Client Services (toll-free 1-866-767-5611; 613-951-2320; fax: 613-951-2307; demography@statcan.gc.ca), Demography Division.

Table 1 Components and factors of demographic growth

Table 2 Annual population estimates

Table 3 Population estimates, age distribution and median age as of July 1, 2011, Canada, provinces and territories

Table 4 Population estimates by sex and age group as of July 1, 2011, Canada

[Vaillant]

Quebec as grow of about 74 000

2011 7 979 663

according to Institut de la Statistique du Québec http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/demographie/struc_poplt/qc_1971-20xx.htm

[Nicko999]

I thought we were already over 8,000,000.

[le calmar]

We are... Institut de la statistique du Québec is not exactly a reliable source, Statcan numbers are more accurate.

[Rico Rommheim]

Cool, Quebec at over 8, 000 000! Montreal must be pretty close to that 4, 000 000, if it has not already surpassed it.

[Vaillant]

I thought we were already over 8,000,000.

according to Institut de la statistique du Quebec from juky 1st 2010 to june 30th 2011 Quebec grew by 74 000 and statcan 78 000

[freeweed]

Ah geez.. I think I've tipped into "over the median age" in Alberta. I'm officially an old person, and not even 40. This place rocks.

[Gdoggy]

I thought we were already over 8,000,000.

but you are forgetting, this is population on July 1, 2011. Quebec passed 8 million only in September.

[vid]

Ah geez.. I think I've tipped into "over the median age" in Alberta. I'm officially an old person, and not even 40. This place rocks.

There are numerous communities in Northern Ontario where I at 23 would be considered "old".

I wouldn't say they rock.

[MTLskyline]

In the city I live, St. Lambert, the median age was 48 in 2006 (second oldest in Quebec after Cote-Saint-Luc). It is probably 50 now. I'm literally surrounded by senior citizens! (I remember reading a few years ago that it is the municipality with the highest proportion of females in the country, in 2001 there were 79.1 men for every 100 women).

[MolsonExport]

^my family's first house was in St. Lambert (early 70s)...I am an old fogey from the '60s.

[ssiguy]

I live in the kick the bucket capitol of Canada............White Rock.

[MolsonExport]

^pretty close. I lived in Osoyoos for a while...wonderful place with a median age of 75.

[Razor]

I'm curious to see each city's population stats from this 2011 Census, but we'll have to wait until early 2012 for the figures...Calgary's cma has now over-taken Ottawa for 4th largest Cma I believe, and I read somewhere that both cities are un-officially just over 1.2 million now..Nice sized cities IMO..I don't know about Calgary, but here in Ottawa you can still get around the city in a half hour at most.
Montreal should be at the 4 million mark..I'm there next Saturday, so I'll do a head count lol..

[Ayreonaut]

From the cities I've been to, I feel most at home in those close to the 2 million mark (for instance, I love Pittsburgh and Columbus). I look forward to watching Calgary (and Ottawa and Edmonton) approach that mark.

[jigglysquishy]

I'm curious to see each city's population stats from this 2011 Census, but we'll have to wait until early 2012 for the figures...Calgary's cma has now over-taken Ottawa for 4th largest Cma I believe, and I read somewhere that both cities are un-officially just over 1.2 million now..Nice sized cities IMO..I don't know about Calgary, but here in Ottawa you can still get around the city in a half hour at most.
Montreal should be at the 4 million mark..I'm there next Saturday, so I'll do a head count lol..

Calgary CMA was larger than Ottawa CMA in the 2010 release so that news is literally over a year old.

[Razor]

Late to the table on that one I guess.. thanks^ .Now .as far as both Calgary and Ottawa hitting 2 million, I wonder if the services just get duplicated at that point...I mean more of the same stores,chain restaurants,sub-divisions etc..Also more commuting head-aches.Besides pro sports,do cities like Pittsburg or Columbus have more going on in the way of festivals, and concerts than Calgary? I don't know.
I suspect when cities get to be alpha -cities like Chi town or Toronto, then a lot more things go on .Cities that size start getting world class zoos, planetariums, aquariums, and broad-way style theatre strips ..I also suspect that there is a big difference from a city of a half million to a million..Just not - from a million to 2 milllion or even 3 million...Your thoughts?
If this is the case I would rather live in an Ottawa sized city.

[Ayreonaut]

I don't think there's a specific jump once you hit two million, it's more of a gradual process. You never know just how a city is going to develop, and what new things will come to town, until it happens. That's what's so exciting to me; Calgary, and really any city, can become something unique as they grow.

I'm a little drunk, so I might not be able to thoroughly explain my thoughts right now, but optimism never hurt anyone.

[isaidso]

From the cities I've been to, I feel most at home in those close to the 2 million mark (for instance, I love Pittsburgh and Columbus).

You're lucky. I feel most at home in those over 10 million meaning I may never get to live in a city size I like in my own country.

[habfanman]

You're lucky. I feel most at home in those over 10 million meaning I may never get to live in a city size I like in my own country.

Then you should do us all a favour and move.

[habfanman]

Population alone isn't a guaranteed indicator of how a city 'feels'. I grew up in London ON, a city of around 400,000 that feels like a town of 50,000 or less. Nothing ever happens there, it's just a stop between Detroit and Toronto. UWO is the only thing that differentiates London from neighbouring St. Thomas. Contrast London with Halifax: major port, tourist city, bars stay open late, capital of Nova Scotia.. perhaps the Maritimes. Same population, ones a dud, the other is a really cool city. Contrast the two of them with The Hague, Netherlands. Slightly larger (500,000), yet it's in a completely different league altogether. Home of the World Court, pedestrian downtown that's alive every night into the wee hours, tram lines that criss cross the entire city.. it's way more interesting than either London ON or Halifax or even boring Toronto, which closes much earlier and doesn't offer nearly as much as The Hague.

Size isn't everything.

[Spocket]

Population alone isn't a guaranteed indicator of how a city 'feels'. I grew up in London ON, a city of around 400,000 that feels like a town of 50,000 or less. Nothing ever happens there, it's just a stop between Detroit and Toronto. UWO is the only thing that differentiates London from neighbouring St. Thomas. Contrast London with Halifax: major port, tourist city, bars stay open late, capital of Nova Scotia.. perhaps the Maritimes. Same population, ones a dud, the other is a really cool city. Contrast the two of them with The Hague, Netherlands. Slightly larger (500,000), yet it's in a completely different league altogether. Home of the World Court, pedestrian downtown that's alive every night into the wee hours, tram lines that criss cross the entire city.. it's way more interesting than either London ON or Halifax or even boring Toronto, which closes much earlier and doesn't offer nearly as much as The Hague.

Size isn't everything.
Well that's a good point but you probably shouldn't be using The Hague as your example . It's in one of the densest countries of one of the densest regions on Earth . Las Vegas ... that's probably a better city to make your point since it was barely a truck stop on some dusty road 70 years ago .

[Spoolmak]

Ah geez.. I think I've tipped into "over the median age" in Alberta. I'm officially an old person, and not even 40. This place rocks.

Don't get too ahead of yourself. Places like Alberta have temporary populations. Once those kids make their money a lot of them leave Alberta. I have proof only thru experience

[Doug]

Don't get too ahead of yourself. Places like Alberta have temporary populations. Once those kids make their money a lot of them leave Alberta. I have proof only thru experience

I wouldn't be so sure. There is a huge baby boom in the province right now and people with kids are less likely to move. Plus lots of people in their 50s and 60s who made big money during the boom will likely retire to BC or the States.

[vid]

Alberta will see a lot of 20-something males leave the province (many have been returning to Thunder Bay, I've seen more Alberta plates than any others except our own lately) but I don't think that will make much of an impact on population. It will just increase a bit more slowly.

[MolsonExport]

The Hague isn't really all that special compared to other similar and slightly larger European cities. Toronto is a lot of things, but boring is not one of them.

[ZeDgE]

Don't get too ahead of yourself. Places like Alberta have temporary populations. Once those kids make their money a lot of them leave Alberta. I have proof only thru experience

Temporary population? What does that even mean?

You make it sound like the whole province packs up and leaves. :rolleyes:

Alberta's population continues to grow regardless of people moving away. People move around all the time, thats not unique to Alberta.

[Vaillant]

so Quebec population should hit 9 000 000 in 13 years? 12 years?

[vid]

Temporary population? What does that even mean?

You make it sound like the whole province packs up and leaves. :rolleyes:

Not the whole population, but a good sized chunk of it. Many people working in the oil sands don't want to stay in Fort McMurray forever.

[ZeDgE]

Not the whole population, but a good sized chunk of it. Many people working in the oil sands don't want to stay in Fort McMurray forever.

Of course, yet the population continues to grow regardless. The post just made it sound like the whole place was vacated or something. Even if they leave Ft Mac, many end up in Edmonton and Calgary. What is a good sized chunk anyway? Are you saying hundreds of thousands are moving out? That would be a good sized chunk to me of 3.7 or so million. We know that is definitely not the case.

[yaletown_fella]

Population alone isn't a guaranteed indicator of how a city 'feels'. I grew up in London ON, a city of around 400,000 that feels like a town of 50,000 or less. Nothing ever happens there, it's just a stop between Detroit and Toronto. UWO is the only thing that differentiates London from neighbouring St. Thomas. Contrast London with Halifax: major port, tourist city, bars stay open late, capital of Nova Scotia.. perhaps the Maritimes. Same population, ones a dud, the other is a really cool city. Contrast the two of them with The Hague, Netherlands. Slightly larger (500,000), yet it's in a completely different league altogether. Home of the World Court, pedestrian downtown that's alive every night into the wee hours, tram lines that criss cross the entire city.. it's way more interesting than either London ON or Halifax or even boring Toronto, which closes much earlier and doesn't offer nearly as much as The Hague.

Size isn't everything.

I find the comparisions to Europe a bit baffling. London Ontario is a quite healthy and vibrant by North American standards. I has a relatively diverse white collar and blue collar workforce and is steadily gaining population. It is also considerably more affordable than Toronto which combined with its proximity to a world class university makes it very attractive to families. Ever been to Ann Arbor, Green Bay or Spokane? What might be more relevant is a comparision between London and Flint Michigan. It's fine that you hate Toronto but comparing it to the Hague is just another example of why people don't take you seriously. North America is built around car culture, why can't you accept that?
Who cares if bars and restaurants aren't open 24/7 when there isn't enough of a demand to even make it feasible?

[Rico Rommheim]

so Quebec population should hit 9 000 000 in 13 years? 12 years?

Let's hope it does, because then its a downhill slope for Quebec's aging population after that.

Aging pop + low reproduction rate + shitty immigration draw = oops.

[Vaillant]

Let's hope it does, because then its a downhill slope for Quebec's aging population after that.

Aging pop + low reproduction rate + shitty immigration draw = oops.

that's true.. so Quebec should have 100 000 new immigrants a year then.

[mike474]

Of course, yet the population continues to grow regardless. The post just made it sound like the whole place was vacated or something. Even if they leave Ft Mac, many end up in Edmonton and Calgary. What is a good sized chunk anyway? Are you saying hundreds of thousands are moving out? That would be a good sized chunk to me of 3.7 or so million. We know that is definitely not the case.

I think the original point was simply that the temporary residents may help to lower the median age. It wasn't an assertion that there is a mass exodus of workers from Alberta.

People get a little too defensive on here sometimes...

[Doug]

Not the whole population, but a good sized chunk of it. Many people working in the oil sands don't want to stay in Fort McMurray forever.

Those people number in the tens of thousands. Something like 70,000 workers left in 08 and 09 when the contruction boom ended. It had an impact, but only a small one.

[isaidso]

Let's hope it does, because then its a downhill slope for Quebec's aging population after that.

Aging pop + low reproduction rate + shitty immigration draw = oops.

I hope Quebec will hit 10,000,000 people one day, but maybe it never will. I didn't think Winnipeg would ever grow by much, but it's growing at a decent clip now. Maybe Quebec can ramp up too?

[SHOFEAR]

Good times are here again.


Influx to Alberta from other provinces running at a five-year high

A former media colleague from Vancouver called a couple of weeks ago. I hadn't talked to him in 10 years.

After decades on the West Coast, he had just moved to Calgary with his wife and three kids.

The reason? Good jobs, lower housing costs and higher disposable incomes. In other words, the same factors that draw many Canadians to Alberta.

Sure, he'll miss the ocean, he admits. "But once you get over the idea of living on the Prairies, life is pretty good here."

My nephew recently came to the same conclusion. He moved back to Edmonton last month, after a dozen years in Victoria. "There was just nothing going on there, and no decent job opportunities," he told me. "It was depressing."

His partner, a talented young architect from Winnipeg, echoed those sentiments. She, too, has made Edmonton her new home.


continued http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Influx+Alberta+from+other+provinces+running+five+year+high/5474897/story.html

[Acajack]

Population alone isn't a guaranteed indicator of how a city 'feels'. I grew up in London ON, a city of around 400,000 that feels like a town of 50,000 or less. Nothing ever happens there, it's just a stop between Detroit and Toronto. UWO is the only thing that differentiates London from neighbouring St. Thomas. Contrast London with Halifax: major port, tourist city, bars stay open late, capital of Nova Scotia.. perhaps the Maritimes. Same population, ones a dud, the other is a really cool city. Contrast the two of them with The Hague, Netherlands. Slightly larger (500,000), yet it's in a completely different league altogether. Home of the World Court, pedestrian downtown that's alive every night into the wee hours, tram lines that criss cross the entire city.. it's way more interesting than either London ON or Halifax or even boring Toronto, which closes much earlier and doesn't offer nearly as much as The Hague.

Size isn't everything.

I am not familiar enough with The Hague but certainly there are many, many European cities that punch far above their (population) weight relative to similarly-sized North American cities. In fact, as a general rule it can be said that one can always expect less in urbanity and urbane pursuits from a North American city than from a similarly-sized European city. There are a few exceptions to this rule - but not that many honestly.

On the other hand, as you said, when taken in the North American-only context, I'd say Halifax (400,000) punches above its weight on this continent. It's not Maastricht, of course, but it's a lot better than Canton, Ohio or Wilmington, NC or London, Ontario, to be quite honest.

[Doug]

I am not familiar enough with The Hague but certainly there are many, many European cities that punch far above their (population) weight relative to similarly-sized North American cities. In fact, as a general rule it can be said that one can always expect less in urbanity and urbane pursuits from a North American city than from a similarly-sized European city. There are a few exceptions to this rule - but not that many honestly.

On the other hand, as you said, when taken in the North American-only context, I'd say Halifax (400,000) punches above its weight on this continent. It's not Maastricht, of course, but it's a lot better than Canton, Ohio or Wilmington, NC or London, Ontario, to be quite honest.

The Hague is an excellent example of how much the North American context differs from the Europena. While it may only have an official population of 400-500K, the Hague is part of the 7M+ Randstad conurbation and the 100M+ "Blue Banana" region.

[Acajack]

The Hague is an excellent example of how much the North American context differs from the Europena. While it may only have an official population of 400-500K, the Hague is part of the 7M+ Randstad conurbation and the 100M+ "Blue Banana" region.

Very true, but you would think that with fewer large cities in their immediate vicinity, most North American cities of a decent size would actually be friggin' amazing, since there is no other competing place nearby to put all the *cool* stuff!

[Doug]

Very true, but you would think that with fewer large cities in their immediate vicinity, most North American cities of a decent size would actually be friggin' amazing, since there is no other competing place nearby to put all the *cool* stuff!

You tend to find that isolated cities like Denver and Calgary feel larger than they are while ones close to other large cities (ex. Hamilton) tend to feel smaller.

[someone123]

I agree that population is not that important. Scandinavia doesn't have high population density but still has nicer cities. I've never been there but I've heard Reykjavik is an interesting city and it's got something like 100,000 people in one of the most remote locations imaginable.

The common advantages of good cities that seem to go hand in hand are high density and high quality infrastructure. Together they create a lot of opportunities that just aren't available in low density suburban environments unless there is a ton of money available. Unless you have high density, for example, you can't pay for fast trains running every few minutes, and you can't support a wide variety of restaurants with good hours. Unless you have good public space and transit, it's not pleasant to have high densities.

Halifax does relatively well in spite of recent poor planning because it inherited a strong core that pretty much dates to the 1750-1880 period when everything was dense and pedestrian-oriented. Quebec City is very similar -- great old core, but the rest mostly sucks. Thankfully there seems to be more urban infill happening now and it is producing dividends that suburban development does not. About 16% of development in Halifax in recent years has been urban infill and that should go up to about 25%. Back in the 80s and 90s the metropolitan population increased significantly but the core stagnated and the city really did not improve much. It is amazing to look at old pictures of the city from as far back as the 1850s and see how well-kept everything was. They had all sorts of problems we have solved today but there's no fundamental reason why we had to give up our good urban environments.

[Acajack]

You tend to find that isolated cities like Denver and Calgary feel larger than they are while ones close to other large cities (ex. Hamilton) tend to feel smaller.

Agreed, but Denver still pales in comparison to Munich, as Calgary
does vs. Oslo.

Or compare Anchorage to Bergen, Norway, or Halifax to Montpellier, France...

[caltrane74]

This is getting ridiculous... you guys are comparing cities that are barely 100 years old, with cities that are easily 2000 years old. OF COURSE the EUROPEAN cities will be far advanced over their northamerican counterparts.

Toronto is like twice the size of Rome, and you won't get any arguements from me, that Rome is probably 10 times more interesting. (if your habsfannmann maybe 100 times more interesting...) lol!

Did you guys that London, was actually founded by the Romans over 2000 years ago... and then as the Roman empire collapsed, they made a deal with the Angles and Saxons of Northern Germany - (mercenaries at the time) to care-take the land for them while they pulled back to defend Rome from even more vicious mean German Barbarians the Vandals and Visigoths whom were attacking Rome at the time. (also the Huns, not German Barbarians but an Asian/Euro hybrid)??

Anyways... its original Latin name was Londonium. - that is history of 1000's of years.. our 100 year old country can't match that shit man..

[caltrane74]

Here's another good one for you guys.. Did you know Milan was actually a German city founded by the Germanic Lombard Barbarians in the north of Italy.

It's original name was Mittleland - in English this means Middleland. - Midland..Milan??

Milano!!!!! Lombardi!!!

Get it?

anyways.. these guys (the decendants of the German Barbarians living in northern Italy) here associate more with Germans than they do with their own southern Italian countrymen, they even speak German and make their kids speak German as well as Italian. They are really proud of their blonde hair and blue eyes.... they think that southern Italy is a drag on the economy, and secretly they wish the could separate into a another country.

[Acajack]

Here's another good one for you guys.. Did you know Milan was actually a German city founded by the Germanic Lombard Barbarians in the north of Italy.

It's original name was Mittleland - in English this means Middleland. - Midland..Milan??

Milano!!!!! Lombardi!!!

Get it?

anyways.. these guys (the decendants of the German Barbarians living in northern Italy) here associate more with Germans than they do with their own southern Italian countrymen, they even speak German and make their kids speak German as well as Italian. They are really proud of their blonde hair and blue eyes.... they think that southern Italy is a drag on the economy, and secretly they wish the could separate into a another country.

Sounds like you might be confusing Milan with Bolzano (Bozen) in the southern Tyrol region of northern Italy...

[kool maudit]

in all reality, munich -- in terms of influence, conurbation size, instutitional weight etc. - is close to boston than denver.

[caltrane74]

Sounds like you might be confusing Milan with Bolzano (Bozen) in the southern Tyrol region of northern Italy...

nope, Milan was also settled by the Lombards...

but yes, I know the Bolzano's are probably more strict on sending their kids to German school, seeing as they are right on the border..

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

nope, Milan was also settled by the Lombards...

but yes, I know the Bolzano's are probably more strict on sending their kids to German school, seeing as they are right on the border..

Actually, Milan was founded by the ancient Insubres (a Celtic/Gallic culture) and was known as Mediolanum. It was later conquered by the Romans (for a while, it was the Capital of the Western Roman Empire), Visigoths, Huns, Ostrogoths, and THEN the Longobards (Lombards) in that particular order.

[Razor]

Not to segue this somewhere else, but Seeing as we are on cities...I don't know about any-one else, never have but I would have a hard time living in what I call a "city-town"..You know..Cities above 70,000 people, but less than 150000..Sudbury and Kingston ontario comes to mind...They have a rush hour and are well serviced, have maybe one or two of every major chain, a junior hockey team but don't quite have what the big centres offers.
I mean no disrespect to either places as Kingston is a great place, but for myself, If I were to leave the city for a town, I would prefer a small town, not an in-between..Other people may prefer living in these sized towns/cities...Anyways, just a randomn thought..

[Acajack]

This is getting ridiculous... you guys are comparing cities that are barely 100 years old, with cities that are easily 2000 years old. OF COURSE the EUROPEAN cities will be far advanced over their northamerican counterparts.

Toronto is like twice the size of Rome, and you won't get any arguements from me, that Rome is probably 10 times more interesting. (if your habsfannmann maybe 100 times more interesting...) lol!

Did you guys that London, was actually founded by the Romans over 2000 years ago... and then as the Roman empire collapsed, they made a deal with the Angles and Saxons of Northern Germany - (mercenaries at the time) to care-take the land for them while they pulled back to defend Rome from even more vicious mean German Barbarians the Vandals and Visigoths whom were attacking Rome at the time. (also the Huns, not German Barbarians but an Asian/Euro hybrid)??

Anyways... its original Latin name was Londonium. - that is history of 1000's of years.. our 100 year old country can't match that shit man..

I think too much is made of the history of European cities. When people say a city was founded a thousand years ago, what is often true is that the said city was nothing but a village for 700 or 800 of those years. There are exceptions of course (London and Rome are notable) but by and large most European cities became large or at least largish around the same time many North American cities in the eastern part of the continent were founded.

Plus, even in a fairly old city like Paris, much of what you see today was built in the 1800s or even the 1900s, when places like Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. already existed as bona fide cities.

North American cities are generally sub-par when compared to European ones, and a shorter history is not always the only reason, nor even the main one.

[Reesonov]

I think too much is made of the history of European cities. When people say a city was founded a thousand years ago, what is often true is that the said city was nothing but a village for 700 or 800 of those years. There are exceptions of course (London and Rome are notable) but by and large most European cities became large or at least largish around the same time many North American cities in the eastern part of the continent were founded.

Plus, even in a fairly old city like Paris, much of what you see today was built in the 1800s or even the 1900s, when places like Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. already existed as bona fide cities.

North American cities are generally sub-par when compared to European ones, and a shorter history is not always the only reason, nor even the main one.

European settlement in the area of modern day New York City began in 1609. Here is a list of various world cities and their approximate populations at the turn of the seventeenth century:

Amsterdam: 60,000;
Beijing: 1,000,000;
Cairo: 200,000;
Istanbul: 700,000;
London: 200,000;
Kyoto: 300,000;
Madrid: 90,000;
Milan: 150,000;
Moscow: 100,000;
Naples: 224,000;
Paris: 325,000;
Rome: 100,000;
Venice: 180,000; and
Vienna: 80,000.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes

Those are some very significant head starts, no?

[le calmar]

Plus, even in a fairly old city like Paris, much of what you see today was built in the 1800s or even the 1900s, when places like Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. already existed as bona fide cities.

North American cities are generally sub-par when compared to European ones, and a shorter history is not always the only reason, nor even the main one.


Very true. I lived in Europe for almost 2 years and few major european cities actually feel very old and the old medieval core (if it still exists) represent for only a small part of the city. Milano actually feel like it was built in the 20th century for the most part. (except for the old monuments of course) And aside for a few roman ruins (except for Rome) and a couple of medieval remains and churches, London, Paris, Rome, Budapest, etc. are more 19th century cities than anything else.

[ssiguy]

One thing that is quite stark with these new stats is the plunging BC population growth rate. It is now below the national average. BC is now has a negative interprovincial growth rate. BC's population growth rate has been staedily falling for the last 3 years.
GlobalBC has justed a new month low in-depth program named GenerationHow. It is going into BC slowing population growth and how so many young families are leaving the province as owning a home is now a complete impossibility, Even families with 100k plus incomes qualify for nothing. To qualify for the average SFH in Vancouver requires 92% of PRE-tax income. In other words BCers are sick of living in absolute poverty and are voicing their discontent with their feet.

[jlousa]

Let's take a look at the facts behind ssiguys rant. Couldn't find it, but found this instead.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/mig/mf11_2.pdf

We see that BC only increased it's population by ~8800 in the 2nd quarter of this year. That is including a loss inter provincially of a whopping ~700 people (1200 went to Alberta) we had gains from every other region except a loss of 85 people to Atlantic canada. The numbers also show international gains of ~9500 in the quarter (works out pretty damn close to the recent historical average of 40K/year).
Guess those 1200 moved to Alberta for cheap houses, not quite sure why those other people came to BC...:rolleyes:

[Chadillaccc]

European culture is based in closeness and social ties, hence a historical trend towards encouraging population density.

North American culture is based in expansion, farming, and to some extent, xenophobia and greed, hence a historical and current trend towards anti-social neighborhoods, suburban sprawl, low population density and big yards. Though that trend is beginning to change in the more progressive cities like Portland Oregon, Mexico City, Vancouver, and Seattle.

New York City has always had somewhat of a European feel to it, especially as far as population density and pedestrian friendliness is concerned.

[Vaillant]

This is getting ridiculous... you guys are comparing cities that are barely 100 years old, with cities that are easily 2000 years old. OF COURSE the EUROPEAN cities will be far advanced over their northamerican counterparts.

Toronto is like twice the size of Rome, and you won't get any arguements from me, that Rome is probably 10 times more interesting. (if your habsfannmann maybe 100 times more interesting...) lol!

Did you guys that London, was actually founded by the Romans over 2000 years ago... and then as the Roman empire collapsed, they made a deal with the Angles and Saxons of Northern Germany - (mercenaries at the time) to care-take the land for them while they pulled back to defend Rome from even more vicious mean German Barbarians the Vandals and Visigoths whom were attacking Rome at the time. (also the Huns, not German Barbarians but an Asian/Euro hybrid)??

Anyways... its original Latin name was Londonium. - that is history of 1000's of years.. our 100 year old country can't match that shit man..

talk for Canada, Quebec is 403 years old!even more cause tadoussac and Gaspé been founded around 1575, Quebec city 1608 and Montréal in 1642

[Acajack]

European settlement in the area of modern day New York City began in 1609. Here is a list of various world cities and their approximate populations at the turn of the seventeenth century:

Amsterdam: 60,000;
Beijing: 1,000,000;
Cairo: 200,000;
Istanbul: 700,000;
London: 200,000;
Kyoto: 300,000;
Madrid: 90,000;
Milan: 150,000;
Moscow: 100,000;
Naples: 224,000;
Paris: 325,000;
Rome: 100,000;
Venice: 180,000; and
Vienna: 80,000.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes

Those are some very significant head starts, no?

I did acknowledge that there were exceptions, but I note that several of these cities are not even in Europe!

And even so, what does the fact that one's city has a millennial history (or not) really have to do with dressing up nicely to go out on the town, eating fine cuisine, having vibrant streets, or even talking about something more intellectual than The Bachelorette or Coach's Corner when hanging out with friends?

[Acajack]

Very true. I lived in Europe for almost 2 years and few major european cities actually feel very old and the old medieval core (if it still exists) represent for only a small part of the city. Milano actually feel like it was built in the 20th century for the most part. (except for the old monuments of course) And aside for a few roman ruins (except for Rome) and a couple of medieval remains and churches, London, Paris, Rome, Budapest, etc. are more 19th century cities than anything else.

This has been my observation also. For example, there is very little in Paris today that is older than the Baron Haussmann era of the second half of the 1800s.

[Gerrard]

Swap Coaches Corner for Football and the Bachelorette for Big Brother or whatever mind scrambling variety show you can and you'll get the gist of what people anywhere in the Western World talk about.

Those cities list all at one time were the products of Imperial nations. Historically we're a nation of peasants, castaways and the hopelessly middle class and our cities reflect that.

[Acajack]

Swap Coaches Corner for Football and the Bachelorette for Big Brother or whatever mind scrambling variety show you can and you'll get the gist of what people anywhere in the Western World talk about.



This does exist in some circles in Europe but that said, in North America you can fairly easily meet people with PhDs or Master's degrees who could not hum a few bars of anything by Mozart if their life depended on it, who could not name you one single Impressionist painter, or who think Dante is only some guy who played quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings.

There are reasons for this (North American education systems tend to be more oriented towards job skills, in Europe one of the main goals is to produce well-rounded individuals/citizens), but let's at least acknowledge that this is the case.

[freeweed]

My god, some of you exhibit worse self-loathing than bi-polar people.

And someone here actually labeled North America as xenophobic, in contrast to Europe? :lmao:

[le calmar]

Europe is far to be the promised land some people seem to think it is. I chose to come back and I am glad I have made this decision. I love our cities and if people have an inferiority complex I'd suggest them to go live there couple of years to see what it's really like. (there are many things you don't see when you just travel)

[Acajack]

If the comments above are meant for me...

I am not self-loathing at all. We are mostly talking about specific aspects of cities here, not necessarily overall quality of life which covers many other factors. From a practical perspective, it's generally much easier to live in North America, and I personally actually do prefer to live in a North American city. By a long stretch.

And a lot of the positive aspects of European cities are available to you in many North America, provided you hang out in the right circles and pay attention to the right stuff. It just doesn't jump out at you and seemingly envelop you like it does in many places in Europe.

[ssiguy]

meanwhile back in Canada..............

[kool maudit]

some westerners are a tiny bit "fuck europe we have china now," or worse, "what? europe? uh... aren't they a bit racist there."

it's just the flipside of the tiresome european sycophancy you sometimes get in the east. we're a very young country.

[armorand93]

My god, some of you exhibit worse self-loathing than bi-polar people.

And someone here actually labeled North America as xenophobic, in contrast to Europe? :lmao:

Europe is a gong show right now. Dont be surprised if theres another World War

[cornholio]

Europe's population pretty much peaked a 100 years ago and there is better regional infrastructure built up because of this and the fact that it was built for a more spread out population and higher densities. The cities in Europe are much bigger then their population statistics suggest because they support a much larger and usually denser area. Most of the cities are reachable from anywhere in under a hour from a 100-150km radios via transit or car. At the moment I am in Prague(where I originally come from) and the city has a population of 1.3mill. But there are a further 1.3mill people that can all be in the center of the city in under a hour by train or car, most of those within 30min and they do commute to the city, often times for work. When you look at the number of people that can be in the center within 2 hours you cover most of the country and about 8mill, in under 3.5 hours all 10.5mill people living in the Czech republic can be in the center of Prague. And im completely ignoring the surrounding countries.

People sometimes forget how densely populated Europe really is.

[Spocket]

European culture is based in closeness and social ties, hence a historical trend towards encouraging population density.
Sorry but I'm not sure where you get your historical information from . It's dense because there are a lot of people living in a relatively small area . Europeans are no more social or close than anybody else on the planet .

North American culture is based in expansion, farming, and to some extent, xenophobia and greed, hence a historical and current trend towards anti-social neighborhoods, suburban sprawl, low population density and big yards. Though that trend is beginning to change in the more progressive cities like Portland Oregon, Mexico City, Vancouver, and Seattle.
Xenophobia and greed ? You mean like the Inquisition , the Holocaust , the Crusades , ancient Rome , the Viking expansion , Alexander the Great , the British Empire , the Spanish Empire , the Portuguese Empire , the French Empires , etc. ? Expansion and farming ? The entire world farms and it's the greatest single reason for diminishing tree cover around the world .


New York City has always had somewhat of a European feel to it, especially as far as population density and pedestrian friendliness is concerned.
Not always and you're thinking of Manhattan anyway .

[freeweed]

Xenophobia and greed ? You mean like the Inquisition , the Holocaust , the Crusades , ancient Rome , the Viking expansion , Alexander the Great , the British Empire , the Spanish Empire , the Portuguese Empire , the French Empires , etc. ?

Geez dude, those are ancient history, get with the times.

Just go ask an Irishman what he thinks of all the Poles in his country today. Or your average European what they think of the Muslims making up a single digit percentage of their population.

On this front, they make the most stereotypical redneck bigoted Albertan farmer look like an enlightenment scholar. It's arguable that xenophobia is what *defines* European history for the past 1000 years or so, and it continues very much out in the open today.

[MolsonExport]

^not far from the truth, based upon my recent European travels in France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Iceland, and Norway.

[kool maudit]

we have no right to expect the citizens of europe's ancient nations to have the same attitudes towards mass immigration as we do in canada, the u.s., australia or any other new world country.

there is no reason for your average, say, austrian to view the emergence of even a single-digit muslim population in vienna as an unalloyed good.

our present xenophilia will look frenzied and desperate to the historians of the twenty-second century. it is not even respected by many of its beneficiaries. it's a vanity.

[slide_rule]

^More like we can expect people to blame a scapegoat because people in general don't think. They have loyalty to their own tribe and reflexively see outsiders as the enemy.

Much of the anti-immigration hysteria in Northern Europe is being exploited by populist politicians. Instead of acknowledging the nefarious impact of the banks, the real estate industry, and the monopolies, it's just easier to accuse someone of the wrong skin tone or accent.

Mind you, if living conditions in Canada (and elsewhere) start to deteriorate, we could see similar idiocy. It doesn't make sense, yet people will still rationalize it.

[slide_rule]

our present xenophilia will look frenzied and desperate to the historians of the twenty-second century. it is not even respected by many of its beneficiaries. it's a vanity.

Xenophilia? Oh really? Canada is one of the places that is objectively underpopulated. Because of its low natural rate of increase, the drying up of its traditional sources of immigrants, and because of the economic advantages of a rising population, Canada threw off the shackles of its history and adopted a liberalized immigration policy.

Just like every other place, the redneck/hillbilly/unwitting idiot demographic does an awesome job of blaming the newcomer/minority for diluting culture/breeding crime/lowering the job market/etc. Yet these same people don't realize the often harmful decision-making comes from the top.

Here's just one example: we may lust after cohesive European city cores and their mass transit. But this has NOTHING to do with ethnicity. Europe by and large developed before the age of the car, and with a few exceptions also had urban planners in positions of power. Thus proper public transit networks were developed. Canada came of age during the automobile era. That can't be changed. What's disturbing however, is that "market economics" have made the FIRE industries the most powerful group when it comes to developing our cities. Thus you see the very profitable, very dysfunctional, endlessly sprawling cities, questionable PT, and the vast majority of people becoming indentured servants to the bank.

Blaming the out-group does a great job of deflecting people from properly citing corporate media control, regressive tax laws, etc.

[someone123]

Vanity is one possible reason for liking immigration but there are better ones. For example, as the US liberalized its immigration policies its universities began to attract some of the best people from around the world. Prior to WWII, German universities played a similar role.

I believe that the countries with more restrictive immigration policies will gradually be left behind, if they still exist in one hundred years. The European concept of ethnicity will look about as quaint as fundamentalist views on creation. Both are based on ideas that are meaningless outside of a narrow snapshot in time.

[ssiguy]

[QUOTE=jlousa;5432614]Let's take a look at the facts behind ssiguys rant. Couldn't find it, but found this instead.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/mig/mf11_2.pdf

We see that BC only increased it's population by ~8800 in the 2nd quarter of this year. That is including a loss inter provincially of a whopping ~700 people (1200 went to Alberta) we had gains from every other region except a loss of 85 people to Atlantic canada. The numbers also show international gains of ~9500 in the quarter (works out pretty damn close to the recent historical average of 40K/year).
Guess those 1200 moved to Alberta for cheap houses, not quite sure why those other people came to BC...:rolleyes:[/QUOT

I don't understand you sarcasim as the stats speak for themselves.
According to StatsCan with the latest release here are the numbers rounded off for population growth for BC for the first six 6 months of the last 4 years:
2008.......37.5k, 2009......35.5k, 2010.......32.5k, 2011......22.5k.
The is a very steady decline and the rate of decline is increasing and BC is now growing slower than the national average.

Also...........when did this thread go from Canadian population estimates to one on European history?
Let's keep on topic.

[LeftCoaster]

What's the point of citing one quarter?

Here are the revelant ANNUAL growth rates for BC


2007 - 66,052
2008 - 74,228
2009 - 76,432
2010 - 70,688
2011 - 74,837

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/CurrentPopulationEstimates.pdf

Only one year where rate of increase slowed, and every year was a strong positive. I wish you would really stop making up facts to make BC look bad. Its getting tiresome.

[freeweed]

Vanity is one possible reason for liking immigration but there are better ones.

I like immigration for the exact same reason people travel - but I'm lazy to boot. I find it absolutely wonderful to talk to people from 10 different countries on an average day at work, and then go out to eat from 200+ different regions' cuisine. All without stepping foot outside my own city. And when I then travel there, I have a bit more appreciation for the people, because I've already met some of them.

I guess if international travel makes one vain, call me vain. :shrug:

I've already lived in a small town where everyone looked the same, talked the same, and thought the same. It was boring as shit.

Regardless, immigration policies in Canada (and the reasons people are for/against them) are hugely related to Canada's population.

[Spoolmak]

How has ssiguy not been banned or at least suspended yet? Every post he makes is an attack on BC and he doesn't back up any information he claims.

[haljackey]

How has ssiguy not been banned or at least suspended yet? Every post he makes is an attack on BC and he doesn't back up any information he claims.

lol, that's not grounds for banning. If there's personal attacks, well then that's a different story. This is the internet, not a courtroom. Also, check the site rules.

[kool maudit]

i do think think immigration can be great (worked for my father), and choose to live in an immigrant neighbourhood of an immigrant city of an country myself. i am simply not a universalist on the issue. it doesn't bother me if austria or japan, say, democratically enact restrictive immigration laws. it is their right.

all too often, the argument is set up as being between mass immigration and low bigotry, so that the very structure of the debate assumes that all decent, right-thinking people will be on one side. in reality, it is complex and variable issue, much like tax rates.

we have too many issues like this, where there is only one supposedly decent side. it's manichean. we're becoming unused to debate, and all too skilled at pre-emptive moral condemnation.

[ssiguy]

How has ssiguy not been banned or at least suspended yet? Every post he makes is an attack on BC and he doesn't back up any information he claims.

Upon reading your response and how you think I should be banned has left me truly traumatized...........I haven't slept in days.
Go to the StasCan site for the stats, all I did was put down the facts . Also how is this an attack on BC?............the population growth is slowing and we now have a net out-migration and I personally believe that is not because of lack of jobs or people not enjoying all the great things BC has to offer but due to the outrageous real estate prices. Raising a family in this province has become a near impossibility for most people even with a decent income.
Not everyone wants to or can live in a 500sq foot 350k condo. Some people don't want to be debt slaves and some people still have kids.
Now this stament I cannot find proof of so you can bitch all you want about it.......I think one of the greatest concerns is that I believe that most of the people leaving the province are people under 35 and a dispropotionate number arriving are over 55.
Once in BC most retirees do not leave the province as most have moved here to enjoy their retirement in a better climate and have sold their houses and used their equity to buy smaller homes/condos with less upkeep for their retirement years. They no longer need the space and don't want the upkeep which they may physically no longer be able to maintain and also the more upkeep a home has it also is more likely to interfere or inhibit travel plans.
Conversly, those starting out need to buy larger homes to raise their kids and afford them a decent standard of living in a decent area. They also need to begin saving for their retirement years, vacations with the kids, they want a better car, the latest tech stuff, and need to begin saving for their kids education. They also may need future funds for themselves to put in the bank if one of them become unemployed. When you are paying a very high price for your mortgage and have to have a longer amortisation period all of these things are compromised and some impossible.
BC has a lot of wonderful things to offer. My point is all those things are superfolous if you can't afford a home, llive in poverty, and having to be debt poor but still have to raise your kids in an unappealing area.
People are beginning to vote with their feet and I personally think it's not because they want to leave the province or the friends/family they may have here but rather pure pragmatism.

[Acajack]

i do think think immigration can be great (worked for my father), and choose to live in an immigrant neighbourhood of an immigrant city of an country myself. i am simply not a universalist on the issue. it doesn't bother me if austria or japan, say, democratically enact restrictive immigration laws. it is their right.

all too often, the argument is set up as being between mass immigration and low bigotry, so that the very structure of the debate assumes that all decent, right-thinking people will be on one side. in reality, it is complex and variable issue, much like tax rates.

we have too many issues like this, where there is only one supposedly decent side. it's manichean. we're becoming unused to debate, and all too skilled at pre-emptive moral condemnation.

Similarly, homogeneity does not automatically mean a place is colourless and uninteresting.

Here is an ethnic map of Saskatchewan:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cansk/maps/ethnic-bloc-200.jpg

Nothing against Saskatchewan (I just picked it because it has the most diverse non-urban population in the country), but would most people say Saskatchewan is way more interesting culturally than, say, (ethnically homogenous) Japan?

[mike474]

Similarly, homogeneity does not automatically mean a place is colourless and uninteresting.

Here is an ethnic map of Saskatchewan:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cansk/maps/ethnic-bloc-200.jpg

Nothing against Saskatchewan (I just picked it because it has the most diverse non-urban population in the country), but would most people say Saskatchewan is way more interesting culturally than, say, (ethnically homogenous) Japan?

127x the population in half the area might have something to do with it too

[ssiguy]

I agree that a city can be very vital even if homogeneous.
Quebec City is the most homogenous large metro in the nation and no one is going to tell me it's not a with culture and vitality.
I think sometimes cities try to be "multicultural" because it's the new buzzword.
My London is probably still the WASP capitol of Canada but now says it's more multicultural. It has changed in the last 10 years but it's still pretty white bread which is fine. I have always found that London has a charm and I see no reason to try to remake the city into something it's not.
It is culture shock when I go back and visit. Vancouver is so Asian and when I return to London all the white faces does seem "odd". Despite all the talk of Canada being very multicultural, in reality that is very much an largeer urban affair and many small cities/towns and rural areas have the same ethnic makeup as they did 50 years ago.

[MolsonExport]

127x the population in half the area might have something to do with it too

Ding-Ding-Ding! "we have a winner!"

[Reesonov]

Similarly, homogeneity does not automatically mean a place is colourless and uninteresting.

Here is an ethnic map of Saskatchewan:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cansk/maps/ethnic-bloc-200.jpg

Nothing against Saskatchewan (I just picked it because it has the most diverse non-urban population in the country), but would most people say Saskatchewan is way more interesting culturally than, say, (ethnically homogenous) Japan?

I wonder how Japanese people would answer that question though? Often the grass is greener on the other side when it comes to what one finds exotic or culturally interesting.

[Acajack]

127x the population in half the area might have something to do with it too

I beg to differ. Population density or diversity are not really determining factors. Newfoundland is one of the most culturally interesting and unique parts of Canada, and yet it is one of the most homogenous parts of the country and has a population density of 4 persons per sq km (for Nfld. island), which is 80 times less dense than Japan.

[jmt18325]

You're looking at this from your own perspective though. You have more in common with someone in Saskatchewan than Newfoundland and Labrador, or Japan.

[jigglysquishy]

Newfoundland is far more interesting than Saskatchewan.

Its not population or racial makeup that develops interesting culture. Its history.

Japan has had a distinct culture for hundreds of years. Saskatchewan, maybe a hundred. Newfoundland, a couple hundred years.

That's why places like Vienna are so awesome. Its metro is roughly Vancouver's size, but its been relevant for 800 years. All that times creates interesting stories, history, people, culture, foods, music etc.

[Acajack]

You're looking at this from your own perspective though. You have more in common with someone in Saskatchewan than Newfoundland and Labrador, or Japan.

Hmm, no. As a native of the Maritimes, I have far more in common with Newfoundlanders than with people in Saskatchewan.

And I'd even say that, although there are significant differences (obviously), most French-speaking Canadians - including Québécois - have quite a bit more in common with Newfoundlanders (the way they party, hang out together, their traditional music, general outlook on life) than they do with people in Saskatchewan.

My comments about Japan and Saskatchewan have nothing to do with simple xenophilia, as you seem to be implying.

[Acajack]

Newfoundland is far more interesting than Saskatchewan.

Its not population or racial makeup that develops interesting culture. Its history.

Japan has had a distinct culture for hundreds of years. Saskatchewan, maybe a hundred. Newfoundland, a couple hundred years.

That's why places like Vienna are so awesome. Its metro is roughly Vancouver's size, but its been relevant for 800 years. All that times creates interesting stories, history, people, culture, foods, music etc.

My turn to ring the "winner" bell!

[MolsonExport]

New York has but a fraction of the historical timeline as say, Timbuktu or Carthage, but NYC is far more interesting than Timbuktu or Carthage, for most.

[Acajack]

New York has but a fraction of the historical timeline as say, Timbuktu or Carthage, but NYC is far more interesting than Timbuktu or Carthage, for most.

Good points. It's also about what you have done during that history, not just the length of it!

[MonctonRad]

:previous:

In medicine it would be the old "nature ve nurture" argument. In truth, the answer lies in the middle. There are multiple factors involved.

[jmt18325]

My comments about Japan and Saskatchewan have nothing to do with simple xenophilia, as you seem to be implying.

That isn't what I was implying. I was talking about cultural perspective.

[jmt18325]

New York has but a fraction of the historical timeline as say, Timbuktu or Carthage, but NYC is far more interesting than Timbuktu or Carthage, for most.

That only proves that it also has to do with knowledge of an area. I have far more interest in Carthage than NYC. I also have far more interest in Philadelphia and Boston.

[jigglysquishy]

I would make the argument that New York is the most interesting city in the world. A lot of that comes that it's been the multicultural Mecca since 1850. Being the largest city in the world for a large part of that certainly helps too.

What makes a city great is the uniqueness and culture. Some cities achieve it through sheer force(NYC) while some rely on their historical strength (Athens) and others rely on a more steady growth(Munich).

I think the biggest thing that drags our cities down is that no one cares about local culture anymore. A place like Paris has it's own style of architecture, cuisine, art, music, etc. Part of that comes from it's history and part comes from it's citizens fiercely defending the city and maintaining it's cultural strength.

Outside of Quebec, Montreal and maybe Halifax no city in Canada has a real identity. People in other cities are content eating in American restaurants, watching American movies, listening to American music etc. There's a reason Quebec's film output absolutely demolish's everything west of Ottawa.

If we really want to create great cities we shouldn't be focusing on pure numbers. We should be pushing local or Canadian culture whenever possible. Afterall, no one goes to Florence to eat at McDonalds.

[jmt18325]

Outside of Quebec, Montreal and maybe Halifax no city in Canada has a real identity.

I think that's a pretty bogus argument. American and Canadian cities don't for the most part interest those who live in similar places because, well, they're similar. That doesn't mean that they don't have identities. Often, people are simply ignorant of the identities.

[Acajack]

That isn't what I was implying. I was talking about cultural perspective.

If you were to place it on a spectrum, the cultural perspective of French-speaking Canadians would still be a lot closer to that of your average Newfoundlander than of your average Saskatchewanian.