Canadian Global Cities - Page 5

lio45 · #81 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I see what you're saying, however, they had only a decade or so of data to base the "10 million in Saskatchewan" assumption on, whereas in the modern day, we have a good seventy years - century worth of very clear trends to base this stuff on.

Just for fun, let's take the last century and make projections based on it... it's easy enough and straightforward enough...

Calgary: 50k to 1.5M (+~1.5M in the last 100 years)
Montreal: 700k to 4M (+~3.3M in the last 100 years)

Projection: in 100 years, Calgary at ~3M, Montreal at ~7.3M, if the growth in the next 100 years is the same as in the last 100 years.

Of course, no one knows what the next 100 years will look like; those projections are still just as unreliable as the one that had Saskatchewan at 10 million even if they're based on a much longer time frame for the data.

kool maudit · #82 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:15 PM**

in my experience, francophone montrealers are about as interested in the prospect of a giant montreal as danes are of a giant copenhagen... it's kind of a "what's the point" thing. we'll just make it a really good and innovative city and it will reflect our ideas about life and all that.

i get it, but i am an anglo and thus filled with imperialist dreamings... so part of me wants it to be the size of moscow, or more accurately, to have reached the present size of moscow in 1910, and with all the buildings that would imply.

Calgarian · #83 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:17 PM**

I bet the city of Calgary will be bigger than the city of Montreal, but I really doubt that Calgary CMA will overtake Montreal in my lifetime, if ever!

kool maudit · #84 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:17 PM**

just think how big calgary will be in 3000 years!

it will have suburbs on the moons of saturn.

i think, along those lines, that nineveh was supposed to have been a pretty big deal by now (the royal court of shalmaneser, according to wealth projections, would have maintained a great many fortune 500s), but ISIS or something i guess.

Calgarian · #85 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit

just think how big calgary will be in 3000 years!

it will have suburbs on the moons of saturn.

i think, along those lines, that nineveh was supposed to have been a pretty big deal by now (the royal court of shalmaneser, according to wealth projections, would have maintained a great many fortune 500s), but ISIS or something i guess.

esquire · #86 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit

in my experience, francophone montrealers are about as interested in the prospect of a giant montreal as danes are of a giant copenhagen... it's kind of a "what's the point" thing. we'll just make it a really good and innovative city and it will reflect our ideas about life and all that.

That's easy for someone from a city like Montreal to say, though... it attained all of the trappings you would expect a major city to have about 150 years ago. Since then it has held its own as a not-quite top tier city with the likes of NY, Chicago and LA, but definitely up there with the full array of business, cultural, educational and other such jewels. Whether it remains at its current population or triples in size, it will still have the critical mass of amenities that you would expect a true metropolis to have.

Calgary, on the other hand, is still an up-and-comer. It doesn't have the things that Montreal has. When Montreal was welcoming the world to Expo 67, Calgary was basically still Regina in the foothills. There is definitely a sense that something is being built there... Montreal probably hasn't had that feeling of being a former frontier town on the rise since the 18th century.

Denscity · #87 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:28 PM**

In 3000 years Castlegar will be the size of today's Calgary!!

lio45 · #88 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit

just think how big calgary will be in 3000 years!

Okotoks will be a lot bigger than Calgary then, actually. (Using constant growth rate projections.)

They both won't be able to touch Milton in 3000 years, needless to say.

Pavlov · #89 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45

Just for fun, let's take the last century and make projections based on it... it's easy enough and straightforward enough...

Calgary: 50k to 1.5M (+~1.5M in the last 100 years)
Montreal: 700k to 4M (+~3.3M in the last 100 years)

Projection: in 100 years, Calgary at ~3M, Montreal at ~7.3M, if the growth in the next 100 years is the same as in the last 100 years.

Of course, no one knows what the next 100 years will look like; those projections are still just as unreliable as the one that had Saskatchewan at 10 million even if they're based on a much longer time frame for the data.

Actually, using those growth rates, Calgary should have a population of ~45 million cowboys in 100 years.

Montreal should have a relatively paltry population of ~23 million hipsters.

Luckily, the Habs and Flames will split the next 100 Stanley Cups equally: 50 each. This will bring the Flames' total to 51 and the Habs' total to an impressive 74. Vancouver will remain at 0.

Acajack · #90 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool maudit

in my experience, francophone montrealers are about as interested in the prospect of a giant montreal as danes are of a giant copenhagen... it's kind of a "what's the point" thing. we'll just make it a really good and innovative city and it will reflect our ideas about life and all that.

.

That's pretty much it.

Although I was thinking about something interesting. Going from the starting point of lio's post about Quebec independence and its impact on Montreal's population growth, how about this alternative scenario?

It's generally assumed that Montreal's population would stagnate or even drop if independence happened.

But what if it grew substantially?

How could this happen?

Well, an independent Quebec would control its immigration. In an effort to replace the people who leave for other parts of Canada (something that would happen at least to some degree), Quebec could decide to open its doors to immigration even more than they already are. An independent Quebec would lose the "Canada" brand but it would still be a first world, new world country, a far better place to live than 90% of the countries in the world.

Imagine the unimaginable: a Montreal that's bigger than Toronto as the metropolis of an independent Quebec!

Oui et ça devient possible!

niwell · #91 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 7:54 PM**

In the late 60s Montreal was projected as having a population of around 10 million by 2000. Hence Mirabel and the extensive freeway network.

But that's different, I'm sure.

Acajack · #92 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

In the late 60s Montreal was projected as having a population of around 10 million by 2000. Hence Mirabel and the extensive freeway network.

But that's different, I'm sure.

The only difference I see is that almost no one in Montreal thinks nor cares that their city one day will reach 10 million, will be recognized as one of the world's "biggies", or any other stuff like that.

niwell · #93 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

The only difference I see is that almost no one in Montreal thinks nor cares that their city one day will reach 10 million, will be recognized as one of the world's "biggies", or any other stuff like that.

I was more referring to the sentiment that current statistical rates will hold solid despite evidence that things change all the time.

However I do have some books about Montreal pre-FLQ and there did seem to be a lot more boosterism, megaprojects etc.. Hence the projections I mentioned. I'm not sure if this is from being the preeminent city in Canada at the time or what really.

Acajack · #94 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

I was more referring to the sentiment that current statistical rates will hold solid despite evidence that things change all the time.

However I do have some books about Montreal pre-FLQ and there did seem to be a lot more boosterism, megaprojects etc.. Hence the projections I mentioned. I'm not sure if this is from being the preeminent city in Canada at the time or what really.

Montreal, at one point in history, was probably the only chance there ever was to have a single city dominate Canada in the London/Paris/Buenos Aires/Vienna kind of way. It had everything lined up: covering both French and English Canada culturally, demographically and symbolically, it was the cradle of the country's industry and business, the main transportation hub for all modes, and much of the westward development of the country radiated from there.

As impressive as the Toronto 2014 is, it doesn't really have that potential.

niwell · #95 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Montreal, at one point in history, was probably the only chance there ever was to have a single city dominate Canada in the London/Paris/Buenos Aires/Vienna kind of way. It had everything lined up: covering both French and English Canada culturally, demographically and symbolically, it was the cradle of the country's industry and business, the main transportation hub for all modes, and much of the westward development of the country radiated from there.

^True. I would say that day ended well before the 1960s however. Probably 1920s or 30s. After that it retained the cultural aspects but started losing ground on the others quickly.

Acajack · #96 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

^True. I would say that day ended well before the 1960s however. Probably 1920s or 30s. After that it retained the cultural aspects but started losing ground on the others quickly.

You are correct. I'd say that probably some of that idealism was still around in the 1960s though, but it plummeted very quickly towards the end of the decade.

In the 20s and 30s and before that there wasn't much of a big city competition in Canada.

Even Toronto since it became the biggest city in the 1980s has had to share the spotlight with other large/largish and emerging cities a lot more than Montreal had to in its heyday.

Acajack · #97 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 8:18 PM**

For example, Montreal was awarded the 1976 Olympics in 1970. So the build-up and planning for this took place in the 1960s, when the city's claim to being Canada's uncontested metropolis still had a pulse.

geotag277 · #98 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 9:25 PM**

One would think that an individual would get tired of having the exact same conversation over and over and over and over. I've only been on the forum about a year but I've seen the exact same discussion played out at least 10 times already along the lines of the previous few posts. I'm pretty sure there are some word for word quotes being used and repeated ad nauseam almost every 4 weeks.

Beedok · #99 Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 9:34 PM**

I mostly want to see Hamilton to grow so that people stop thinking of it as a Toronto suburb.

MonkeyRonin · #**100** Posted **Oct 2, 2014, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

In the 20s and 30s and before that there wasn't much of a big city competition in Canada.

Even Toronto since it became the biggest city in the 1980s has had to share the spotlight with other large/largish and emerging cities a lot more than Montreal had to in its heyday.

Toronto of the early 20th century was closer to Montreal than any city is to Toronto today.