HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 5:15 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Vancouver/[Winnipeg]
Posts: 4,649
It's fun to think about mergers, especially since I think changing municipality boundaries allow for CMA boundaries to be adjusted. However, is there really any practical reason to do so? From what I understand, amalgamation in Toronto ended up costing more money than it saved, at least initially.

But if we're just talking fantasy and rationalisation for the sake of rationalisation, There are tons of amalgamations within Metro Vancouver that could happen.

Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster
Politically similar and, at least from my point of view having grown up in the suburbs, functionally a contiguous urban area. If you erased all municipal boundaries and someone asked me what "the city" was in the region, I would say the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Give Queensborough to Richmond though.

District of North Vancouver + City of North Vancouver + West Vancouver
There are some differences between these unicipalities, but geographically it makes sense, and overall I think their interests are similar. Though I am unfamiliar with the area.

Richmond + Queensborough
As per above, give Richmond the Queensborough neighbourhood of New Westminster so it has all of Lulu Island to itself.

Surrey + Township of Langley+ City of Langley + White Rock + North Delta
Functionally, the "South of Fraser" region is essentially one place. Boundaries appear in the middle of developed neighbourhoods ignoring the gaps created by farmland, making for some weird results. White Rock is a tiny little municipality that doesn't seem to have much of a raison d'être aside from being able to say they don't live in Surrey. Same for North Delta. It's really just a residential extension of Surrey. Nobody who lives outside of North Delta knows what it is; everyone thinks it's Surrey already anyway.

South Delta (- North Delta)
I was unsure on whether to give South Delta to Surrey or not, but ultimately I think it doesn't make sense as there's a tremendous amount of farms and parks separating their built up areas. It would be the smallest municipality in my amalgamation, but 50,000 people still isn't bad and with the ferry terminal, the massive port and potentially Tilbury Industrial Park depending on how you split it, it would still have a very sizeable tax base.

Port Moody + Coquitlam + Port Coquitlam + Anmore + Belcarra
Again an area I'm not too familiar with, but travelling through it, you hardly notice a difference. It's continuously built up in a similar landscape. In fact, it is a contiguous extension of Burnaby/New Wesminster. The reason I wouldn't include it in that amalgamation is that politically it's still different. Burnaby and New Westminster seem urban in character. The Northeast is definitely suburban. I would worry about them having too much influence. Despite Belcarra and Anmore being different, I think they're small enough for it to not really matter.

Pitt Meadows + Maple Ridge
Again, a contiguous geographic developed area, with clear boundaries through the rivers. Also without much of a hint that it's two different places.

I drew up a little diagram of what that would look like below. I'm guessing Vancouver's amalgamation would put Abbotsford and Chilliwack potentially into its CMA, but I'm not sure, so I left them grey as a reference. Populations are as of the 2011 census, but are not entirely accurate as I got lazy when splitting neighbourhoods into different municipalities.


Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr

Notice how this makes sure Vancouver stays above Surrey for a while

Something I've thought of before is making all of Metro Vancouver into a city, with these sub-regions as boroughs. However, I have no idea what that would do and don't really understand what boroughs do and think about it only because New York has it. For this reason, I have Vancouver's amalgamation as the original townsite was called Granville, and it frees up the Vancouver name for the entire metro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 5:18 AM
craneSpotter craneSpotter is offline
is watching.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria!
Posts: 2,451
For Greater Victoria:

I would like to see the 'core' municipalities of Saanich, Victoria, Oak Bay and Esquimalt merged - a new city with a population of ~230,000

Also, would like to see the Westshore communities of Langford, Colwood, View Royal and Highlands merge - a new city of ~68,000.

The Saanich Peninsula, Sooke, Metchosin and the unincorporated areas could remain status quo. They comprise ~75,000

It won't happen tho. The munis here like their seperate identity and localized control ...a'la USA (Greater Los Angeles is comprised of more than 50 municipalities! Metro Seattle more than 40...).
__________________
"The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country."

Last edited by craneSpotter; Jan 20, 2017 at 5:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 5:27 AM
DavefromSt.Vital DavefromSt.Vital is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yonge and Davisville
Posts: 241
For Winnipeg:

Go with the Unicity plan of amalgamating Headingly, East St. Paul and West St. Paul.

For good measure, add in all land within the Floodway and 1 km of the Perimeter Highway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 5:34 AM
OutOfTowner OutOfTowner is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: MTL
Posts: 468
I think that Southern Ontario should merge with surrounding states. Become the 51st! Culturally, there's little difference. Wee Americans with increasingly crappy health care and less gun crazy but other than that.. what's the diff? Same everything that anybody in Cleveland would talk about, culturally speaking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 5:44 AM
trebor204's Avatar
trebor204 trebor204 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 579
Manitoba - Winkler (11,000) and Morden (8,000). The cites are about 10km apart.
Stats Can has combined both Winkler, Morden, and the surrounding RM of Stanley (8,300) into a Census Agglomeration. Once Census releases the figures next month you can see the CA of Winkler approaching 35-40,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 6:18 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 9,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz View Post
The provincial politicians were too scared to do it because of the backlash they'd face from Windsor's suburbs. The culture is similar to Southeast Michigan...everyone wants to live in their own little fiefdom and instead of thinking regionally the municipalities are only out for themselves.
The PCs faced down similar backlash from more or less the entire province and went ahead with mergers anyway.. what made Windsor so special at the time?

Nowadays, it should be easy enough. All of the Windsor area seats are held by the NDP, so in theory it shouldn't cost either a Liberal or PC government anything politically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 6:30 AM
rousseau's Avatar
rousseau rousseau is offline
Registered Drug User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 4,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTowner View Post
I think that Southern Ontario should merge with surrounding states. Become the 51st! Culturally, there's little difference. Wee Americans with increasingly crappy health care and less gun crazy but other than that.. what's the diff? Same everything that anybody in Cleveland would talk about, culturally speaking.
This was habfanman's schtick until the forum got tired of it a few years ago. You could look up his posts to see where he took it. Maybe you can bring something new to the game.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 6:46 AM
OutOfTowner OutOfTowner is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: MTL
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
This was habfanman's schtick until the forum got tired of it a few years ago. You could look up his posts to see where he took it. Maybe you can bring something new to the game.
That guy sounds cool!

Maybe you could come up with an intelligent counter argument rather than be the arrogant p.o.s. that you usually are?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 1:42 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavefromSt.Vital View Post
For Winnipeg:

Go with the Unicity plan of amalgamating Headingly, East St. Paul and West St. Paul.

For good measure, add in all land within the Floodway and 1 km of the Perimeter Highway.
Headingly was part of Winnipeg, took a vote to leave, and left! (And haven't looked back)
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 1:47 PM
DrNest's Avatar
DrNest DrNest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Now be nice, there is a sports scene in Vancouver, no?
You are correct, and I have nothing per se against the Vancouver teams, but living in the GTA I'm a fan of the Toronto sports teams, and so would want them in my fantasy amalgamated city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 2:54 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 32,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTowner View Post
I think that Southern Ontario should merge with surrounding states. Become the 51st! Culturally, there's little difference. Wee Americans with increasingly crappy health care and less gun crazy but other than that.. what's the diff? Same everything that anybody in Cleveland would talk about, culturally speaking.
Cruisin' for a bruisin'?
__________________
¿Por qué no te callas?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 4:52 PM
YannickTO YannickTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Magog, QC
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
It's fun to think about mergers, especially since I think changing municipality boundaries allow for CMA boundaries to be adjusted. However, is there really any practical reason to do so? From what I understand, amalgamation in Toronto ended up costing more money than it saved, at least initially.

But if we're just talking fantasy and rationalisation for the sake of rationalisation, There are tons of amalgamations within Metro Vancouver that could happen.

Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster
Politically similar and, at least from my point of view having grown up in the suburbs, functionally a contiguous urban area. If you erased all municipal boundaries and someone asked me what "the city" was in the region, I would say the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Give Queensborough to Richmond though.

District of North Vancouver + City of North Vancouver + West Vancouver
There are some differences between these unicipalities, but geographically it makes sense, and overall I think their interests are similar. Though I am unfamiliar with the area.

Richmond + Queensborough
As per above, give Richmond the Queensborough neighbourhood of New Westminster so it has all of Lulu Island to itself.

Surrey + Township of Langley+ City of Langley + White Rock + North Delta
Functionally, the "South of Fraser" region is essentially one place. Boundaries appear in the middle of developed neighbourhoods ignoring the gaps created by farmland, making for some weird results. White Rock is a tiny little municipality that doesn't seem to have much of a raison d'être aside from being able to say they don't live in Surrey. Same for North Delta. It's really just a residential extension of Surrey. Nobody who lives outside of North Delta knows what it is; everyone thinks it's Surrey already anyway.

South Delta (- North Delta)
I was unsure on whether to give South Delta to Surrey or not, but ultimately I think it doesn't make sense as there's a tremendous amount of farms and parks separating their built up areas. It would be the smallest municipality in my amalgamation, but 50,000 people still isn't bad and with the ferry terminal, the massive port and potentially Tilbury Industrial Park depending on how you split it, it would still have a very sizeable tax base.

Port Moody + Coquitlam + Port Coquitlam + Anmore + Belcarra
Again an area I'm not too familiar with, but travelling through it, you hardly notice a difference. It's continuously built up in a similar landscape. In fact, it is a contiguous extension of Burnaby/New Wesminster. The reason I wouldn't include it in that amalgamation is that politically it's still different. Burnaby and New Westminster seem urban in character. The Northeast is definitely suburban. I would worry about them having too much influence. Despite Belcarra and Anmore being different, I think they're small enough for it to not really matter.

Pitt Meadows + Maple Ridge
Again, a contiguous geographic developed area, with clear boundaries through the rivers. Also without much of a hint that it's two different places.

I drew up a little diagram of what that would look like below. I'm guessing Vancouver's amalgamation would put Abbotsford and Chilliwack potentially into its CMA, but I'm not sure, so I left them grey as a reference. Populations are as of the 2011 census, but are not entirely accurate as I got lazy when splitting neighbourhoods into different municipalities.


Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr

Notice how this makes sure Vancouver stays above Surrey for a while

Something I've thought of before is making all of Metro Vancouver into a city, with these sub-regions as boroughs. However, I have no idea what that would do and don't really understand what boroughs do and think about it only because New York has it. For this reason, I have Vancouver's amalgamation as the original townsite was called Granville, and it frees up the Vancouver name for the entire metro.
Amazing post. Wish you could do the same drawing for all other potential cities mentioned, with the population (could you add the sq km?) ...

Nice. It's time for Vancouver to join the big leagues. I'd give it Richmond to cross the 1M mark
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 8:23 PM
YannickTO YannickTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Magog, QC
Posts: 176
Talking about Vancouver, it made me think... will «Greater Vancouver A« ever become a real municipal entity with a real name? What are the main communities within Greater Vancouver A ? For a place with 13k people, shouldn't get a proper name?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 11:30 PM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
It's fun to think about mergers, especially since I think changing municipality boundaries allow for CMA boundaries to be adjusted. However, is there really any practical reason to do so? From what I understand, amalgamation in Toronto ended up costing more money than it saved, at least initially.

But if we're just talking fantasy and rationalisation for the sake of rationalisation, There are tons of amalgamations within Metro Vancouver that could happen.

Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster
Politically similar and, at least from my point of view having grown up in the suburbs, functionally a contiguous urban area. If you erased all municipal boundaries and someone asked me what "the city" was in the region, I would say the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Give Queensborough to Richmond though.

District of North Vancouver + City of North Vancouver + West Vancouver
There are some differences between these unicipalities, but geographically it makes sense, and overall I think their interests are similar. Though I am unfamiliar with the area.

Richmond + Queensborough
As per above, give Richmond the Queensborough neighbourhood of New Westminster so it has all of Lulu Island to itself.

Surrey + Township of Langley+ City of Langley + White Rock + North Delta
Functionally, the "South of Fraser" region is essentially one place. Boundaries appear in the middle of developed neighbourhoods ignoring the gaps created by farmland, making for some weird results. White Rock is a tiny little municipality that doesn't seem to have much of a raison d'être aside from being able to say they don't live in Surrey. Same for North Delta. It's really just a residential extension of Surrey. Nobody who lives outside of North Delta knows what it is; everyone thinks it's Surrey already anyway.

South Delta (- North Delta)
I was unsure on whether to give South Delta to Surrey or not, but ultimately I think it doesn't make sense as there's a tremendous amount of farms and parks separating their built up areas. It would be the smallest municipality in my amalgamation, but 50,000 people still isn't bad and with the ferry terminal, the massive port and potentially Tilbury Industrial Park depending on how you split it, it would still have a very sizeable tax base.

Port Moody + Coquitlam + Port Coquitlam + Anmore + Belcarra
Again an area I'm not too familiar with, but travelling through it, you hardly notice a difference. It's continuously built up in a similar landscape. In fact, it is a contiguous extension of Burnaby/New Wesminster. The reason I wouldn't include it in that amalgamation is that politically it's still different. Burnaby and New Westminster seem urban in character. The Northeast is definitely suburban. I would worry about them having too much influence. Despite Belcarra and Anmore being different, I think they're small enough for it to not really matter.

Pitt Meadows + Maple Ridge
Again, a contiguous geographic developed area, with clear boundaries through the rivers. Also without much of a hint that it's two different places.

I drew up a little diagram of what that would look like below. I'm guessing Vancouver's amalgamation would put Abbotsford and Chilliwack potentially into its CMA, but I'm not sure, so I left them grey as a reference. Populations are as of the 2011 census, but are not entirely accurate as I got lazy when splitting neighbourhoods into different municipalities.


Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr

Notice how this makes sure Vancouver stays above Surrey for a while

Something I've thought of before is making all of Metro Vancouver into a city, with these sub-regions as boroughs. However, I have no idea what that would do and don't really understand what boroughs do and think about it only because New York has it. For this reason, I have Vancouver's amalgamation as the original townsite was called Granville, and it frees up the Vancouver name for the entire metro.
The Vancouver area would stand to use some amalgamations, but I'm wondering if your proposed Surrey might be a little too big and spread out? What about North Delta/North Surrey (called Surrey), South Surrey/White Rock (called White Rock) and Cloverdale/the Langleys (called Langley)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2017, 11:46 PM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 287
While not as flashy as some of the urban areas, Saskatchewan's rural municipalities need to be consolidated. Saskatchewan has a total population of approximately 1.1 million, yet they have 296 rural municipalities that range in (2011) population from 8,300-70. By comparison, Alberta approximately the same land area, larger population, and 78 rural divisions (excluding national parks). I'm not familiar with the region, but numerous municipalities should be merged into less than 100. While we're at it, merge the Town of Battleford and the City of North Battleford.


Source: http://www.canadiangenealogy.net/sas...ages/rmmap.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 12:30 AM
manny_santos's Avatar
manny_santos manny_santos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Willowdale
Posts: 3,200
In Ontario there are a few I would look at:

- Whitby and Oshawa
- Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge
- Kingston and the urbanized part of neighbouring Loyalist Township (i.e. Amherstview)
- Sarnia and Point Edward
- Barrie and urbanized parts of its surrounding municipalities
- Windsor/Tecumseh etc.
- London - not really amalgamation but possibly annexation of neighbouring communities such as Dorchester

I would also support a new upper-tier municipality that covers some or all of the GTA.

In most cases in Ontario however, I'd be in favour of de-amalgamation. Chatham-Kent is a truly boggling situation.
__________________
Help control the pet population, have your pets spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 12:39 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
It's fun to think about mergers, especially since I think changing municipality boundaries allow for CMA boundaries to be adjusted. However, is there really any practical reason to do so? From what I understand, amalgamation in Toronto ended up costing more money than it saved, at least initially.

But if we're just talking fantasy and rationalisation for the sake of rationalisation, There are tons of amalgamations within Metro Vancouver that could happen.

Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster
Politically similar and, at least from my point of view having grown up in the suburbs, functionally a contiguous urban area. If you erased all municipal boundaries and someone asked me what "the city" was in the region, I would say the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Give Queensborough to Richmond though.

District of North Vancouver + City of North Vancouver + West Vancouver
There are some differences between these unicipalities, but geographically it makes sense, and overall I think their interests are similar. Though I am unfamiliar with the area.

Richmond + Queensborough
As per above, give Richmond the Queensborough neighbourhood of New Westminster so it has all of Lulu Island to itself.

Surrey + Township of Langley+ City of Langley + White Rock + North Delta
Functionally, the "South of Fraser" region is essentially one place. Boundaries appear in the middle of developed neighbourhoods ignoring the gaps created by farmland, making for some weird results. White Rock is a tiny little municipality that doesn't seem to have much of a raison d'être aside from being able to say they don't live in Surrey. Same for North Delta. It's really just a residential extension of Surrey. Nobody who lives outside of North Delta knows what it is; everyone thinks it's Surrey already anyway.

South Delta (- North Delta)
I was unsure on whether to give South Delta to Surrey or not, but ultimately I think it doesn't make sense as there's a tremendous amount of farms and parks separating their built up areas. It would be the smallest municipality in my amalgamation, but 50,000 people still isn't bad and with the ferry terminal, the massive port and potentially Tilbury Industrial Park depending on how you split it, it would still have a very sizeable tax base.

Port Moody + Coquitlam + Port Coquitlam + Anmore + Belcarra
Again an area I'm not too familiar with, but travelling through it, you hardly notice a difference. It's continuously built up in a similar landscape. In fact, it is a contiguous extension of Burnaby/New Wesminster. The reason I wouldn't include it in that amalgamation is that politically it's still different. Burnaby and New Westminster seem urban in character. The Northeast is definitely suburban. I would worry about them having too much influence. Despite Belcarra and Anmore being different, I think they're small enough for it to not really matter.

Pitt Meadows + Maple Ridge
Again, a contiguous geographic developed area, with clear boundaries through the rivers. Also without much of a hint that it's two different places.

I drew up a little diagram of what that would look like below. I'm guessing Vancouver's amalgamation would put Abbotsford and Chilliwack potentially into its CMA, but I'm not sure, so I left them grey as a reference. Populations are as of the 2011 census, but are not entirely accurate as I got lazy when splitting neighbourhoods into different municipalities.


Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr

Notice how this makes sure Vancouver stays above Surrey for a while

Something I've thought of before is making all of Metro Vancouver into a city, with these sub-regions as boroughs. However, I have no idea what that would do and don't really understand what boroughs do and think about it only because New York has it. For this reason, I have Vancouver's amalgamation as the original townsite was called Granville, and it frees up the Vancouver name for the entire metro.
This is great and makes a lot of sense. Van/Burnaby/New West would be a good first step in regional amalgamation and I agree with your assessment of it as "the city". Richmond and the North Shore almost make the cut as well, for me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 3:51 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,739
In BC we have Langley city surrounded by Langley township and exactly the same for North Vancouver. Merge Pitt meadows and Maple Ridge.

In Greater Victoria there is a Saanich, North Saanich, and Central Saanich with no discernible difference. Same goes for Metchosin, Colwood, and Langford. The number of municipalities in Greater Victoria is absurd in such a small population base. Due to this Victoria city only has about 80,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 4:03 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
It's fun to think about mergers, especially since I think changing municipality boundaries allow for CMA boundaries to be adjusted. However, is there really any practical reason to do so? From what I understand, amalgamation in Toronto ended up costing more money than it saved, at least initially.

But if we're just talking fantasy and rationalisation for the sake of rationalisation, There are tons of amalgamations within Metro Vancouver that could happen.

Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster
Politically similar and, at least from my point of view having grown up in the suburbs, functionally a contiguous urban area. If you erased all municipal boundaries and someone asked me what "the city" was in the region, I would say the area covered by Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. Give Queensborough to Richmond though.

District of North Vancouver + City of North Vancouver + West Vancouver
There are some differences between these unicipalities, but geographically it makes sense, and overall I think their interests are similar. Though I am unfamiliar with the area.

Richmond + Queensborough
As per above, give Richmond the Queensborough neighbourhood of New Westminster so it has all of Lulu Island to itself.

Surrey + Township of Langley+ City of Langley + White Rock + North Delta
Functionally, the "South of Fraser" region is essentially one place. Boundaries appear in the middle of developed neighbourhoods ignoring the gaps created by farmland, making for some weird results. White Rock is a tiny little municipality that doesn't seem to have much of a raison d'être aside from being able to say they don't live in Surrey. Same for North Delta. It's really just a residential extension of Surrey. Nobody who lives outside of North Delta knows what it is; everyone thinks it's Surrey already anyway.

South Delta (- North Delta)
I was unsure on whether to give South Delta to Surrey or not, but ultimately I think it doesn't make sense as there's a tremendous amount of farms and parks separating their built up areas. It would be the smallest municipality in my amalgamation, but 50,000 people still isn't bad and with the ferry terminal, the massive port and potentially Tilbury Industrial Park depending on how you split it, it would still have a very sizeable tax base.

Port Moody + Coquitlam + Port Coquitlam + Anmore + Belcarra
Again an area I'm not too familiar with, but travelling through it, you hardly notice a difference. It's continuously built up in a similar landscape. In fact, it is a contiguous extension of Burnaby/New Wesminster. The reason I wouldn't include it in that amalgamation is that politically it's still different. Burnaby and New Westminster seem urban in character. The Northeast is definitely suburban. I would worry about them having too much influence. Despite Belcarra and Anmore being different, I think they're small enough for it to not really matter.

Pitt Meadows + Maple Ridge
Again, a contiguous geographic developed area, with clear boundaries through the rivers. Also without much of a hint that it's two different places.

I drew up a little diagram of what that would look like below. I'm guessing Vancouver's amalgamation would put Abbotsford and Chilliwack potentially into its CMA, but I'm not sure, so I left them grey as a reference. Populations are as of the 2011 census, but are not entirely accurate as I got lazy when splitting neighbourhoods into different municipalities.


Amalgamation Proposal by Glass_City, on Flickr

Notice how this makes sure Vancouver stays above Surrey for a while

Something I've thought of before is making all of Metro Vancouver into a city, with these sub-regions as boroughs. However, I have no idea what that would do and don't really understand what boroughs do and think about it only because New York has it. For this reason, I have Vancouver's amalgamation as the original townsite was called Granville, and it frees up the Vancouver name for the entire metro.
Can only imagine the shitfit Langleyites would have after realizing they are now part of Surrey.

I am completely anti-north shore amalgamation. CNV has nothing in common with DNV and West Van, you can say goodbye to any liberal progressive pro-density voice on the north shore if that were to happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2017, 4:06 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
Also I just noticed Mission is greyed out in the map... is it generally not considered part of Vancouver? I always thought it was...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.