Under the Radar: Darkhorse small cities that could one day be very big
 

Which small cities (UNDER or about 200,000 in metro/region) could make the big city leap in the next 4-5 decades? Reasoning?

Statistics Canada predicts a population of between 40 million (low growth scenario) to 63.5 million (high growth scenario) for Canada by 2063. Much of that growth will take place in the current biggest metropolitan regions. Currently there are 20 population centres in Canada that exceed 200K (smallest currently Barrie), but perhaps there is a dark horse middling metro that could take off, like Calgary and Vancouver, back in the day.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-...014001-eng.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_in_Canada

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-...c-g2.1-eng.gif
statcan

The maximum # of options for a poll is 25, so please don't be offended if your city/region is not listed.

I voted for Kelowna. Rationale:

-somewhat distant from other major cities
-already a hub for a large, growing region without a real anchor city of its own
-region will likely continue to grow

My second choice was Red Deer, but it's too close to Calgary and Edmonton.

I'm sure Barrie will be huge some day, but I'd see it more as a satellite city for the GTA than a true standalone metropolis with a hinterland of its own... sort of a Canadian Bridgeport or New Haven.

Like you said, I think the returns will go to the top. In 50 years, I would expect the biggest metros will be Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton - in that order. As I mentioned in another thread, 9 of the 10 largest cities in 1921 are still the 10 largest CMAs in 2016, including cities that we associate with rapid, postwar growth like Calgary. They're not in the same order, but they're all on the list. That's definitely not the case in the US, where large cities in 1920 like St. Louis and Cleveland are way down the list, replaced with Sunbelt metros.

Canada is not like the US where there's a lot of permanent internal migration. The exception is resource workers from Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland, but there are only so many of them. There won't be a giant city emerging out of nowhere like Phoenix or Tampa.

That said, if I were to bet on a city that will be big in the future that's not a bedroom community of a major CMA - like Barrie or Abbotsford - it'll be Red Deer, Lethbridge or Kelowna.

If the Windsor to Toronto high-speed rail happens I can definitely see Guelph's population skyrocket.

Good point, HSR could be a game changer for southern Ontario. But even still, the cities would grow mainly as bedroom communities for the GTA.

I think Kelowna is going to become a major city within BC and Western Canada, and their tourism industry should be able to make waves outside western Canada. Don't know enough about most cities outside AB and BC to really be able to judge, so I'm taking K-town!

I could see Kelowna growing into a (much smaller), Canadian version of Phoenix.

I don't see anything big happening with cities in Quebec that are outside the immediate orbit of the larger metros.

That said, in the medium to long term I see movement in Quebec's middle tier of cities. With Gatineau and Sherbrooke that are increasingly pulling away from Trois-Rivières and Saguenay, and maybe St-Hyacinthe, Drummondville and Granby moving up to join T-R and Sag to make up a new tier of five.

But none of these will move up to major Canadian city status.

Kelowna has some limits, though.

For one, its growth is limited by infrastructure. Basically the entire Okanagan region is dependent on one road - Highway 97 - which is also a single point of failure, and already quite congested. Building a new road to meet growth will be very difficult since most of the land surrounding Kelowna is difficult terrain, expensive vineyards or public parkland and the NIMBYs would be out in full force.

Secondly, Kelowna isn't cheap. The appeal of the Sunbelt, beyond weather and right-to-work legislation was always how cheaply you could buy housing. Kelowna is really only cheap for people from Metro Vancouver. The fact that housing has to compete with expensive agricultural (vineyard) land, probably means it can't really sprawl its way to a population boom.

Red Deer and Lethbridge will likely see major growth in the next several decades. From ~100,000 now to well over 200,000.

Saskatoon is bigger at 320,000 now, but could very well lead all metros under 500,000 in growth over the next several decades. A Saskatoon of 500,000 is just around the corner.

Global warming could make Grande Prairie a more amenable place to settle. A few connections there and then bam. I can see it growing to 150,000 to 200,000.

Prince Rupert region could grow a fair bit. It might not be able to ship oil products out from there but it can be used to shuip other product out of there.

Not if there is no stop there.

Define "very big". I wouldn't see any of them becoming "top 10", if that's what you mean. :shrug:

Okotoks (AB) ?

It all depends on how you define "one day", but if you're patient enough, my growth projections have 'toks overtaking Tokyo one day.

I always thought that Rimouski's located on a perfect spot for a 100-150 k agglomeration. Never going to happen I know. But it would be perfect.

On the other hand, I could envision a reinforced Drummondville reaching 200k while I am alive, if some things change (a TGV stop for example).

Red Deer, its growth recently, as well as its satellite communities has been astonishing.

Abbotsford-Mission is pretty much guaranteed, the inevitable skytrain extension to Langley along with Surrey and Langley increasingly being for millionaires only will force the middle class to live there.

Squamish would be my other local choice - already growing like mad, but will boom even more if something is ever done about the north shore bridges.

Gibsons/Sechelt/Sunshine Coast could be huge too if they could get a bridge. It's pretty crazy that Vancouver is only expanding to the east right now when there are beautiful oceanfront/mountainview areas on the coast that are closer to downtown and just need a decent connection.

edit: a map to help illustrate the wasted northwest. Yes there are mountains but also plenty of inaccessible flat land and it only makes sense to develop more of the coast beyond Vancouver and Prince Rupert:

http://i.imgur.com/DY3PMxi.jpg

Gibsons currently:

http://i.imgur.com/BQe8eT2.jpg

Even though the demand to do so may be immense, I would think that any steps toward building land connections to those areas would trigger the mother of all NIMBY conflicts.

Yanno what, our birthrates have dropped, but if the feds were to impose a stricter resettlement rule for immigrants, I can honestly see Sudbury pulling off a darkhorse. It already is a regional centre, and critical mass can help it along.Look at the Filipino community in Winnipeg..For connectivity, Sudbury is also not awfully far from the Toronto unlike other Northern communities..

To get a city that would outperform growth-wise over a long period of time, you'd need a few requirements:

1. Lots of cheap space. For all the trend of increasing density, most people still like the single detached home thing. The cities that have boomed in North America have had the space to sprawl out without barrier (most notably Phoenix, AZ).

2. A youthful demographic. Sort of a positive feedback loop of growth. Cities that are predominantly loaded towards an older demographic have more trouble luring those the young who are willing to try somewhere new. Who wants to move to a retirement village like Elliot Lake, ON?

3. Some sort of employment driver. Preferably one that reflects a well rounded economy that would attract people from all walks of life - not just a particular type of person (either blue or white collar).

By sheer numbers, I'd imagine places like Guelph and Barrie will continue to outperform due to proximity to the Greater Toronto Area. However, cost and space is becoming challenging there.

Places like Sudbury, Thunder Bay and smaller to mid-sized cities in the east will struggle as they are much older than the national average and have had less economic growth in the past few decades.

So, likely this place will be out west. I'm thinking somewhere like Red Deer or Grand Prairie.

But, my dark horse candidate would be Brandon, MB. Why? It has a relatively young population. It has space. Lots of it. Inexpensive space too. It's reasonably close to Winnipeg and Saskatchewan. Manitoba's economy tends to be the well rounded, slow and steady type of growth - not some boomtown based upon one volatile resource, with big swings up and down.