Next CMA to reach 1 million

[koops65]

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but I don't think its much of one... so far, all of the scientists predictions have been off, by being placed too far off in the future... almost all climate models show things getting much worse much faster than was anticipated. You say 50 to 100 years, but what if the reality is only 20 years?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Also Francafrique (and some anglo areas of Africa like Nigeria) are probably a couple generations from developed status. The Francophone regions would see Canada as especially appealing, so we're probably good for a while of growth yet. And even if we top out at 50 million, that will mostly be urban growth, so we'll almost certainly see a couple more cities pass a million. It won't all end up in the biggest 9 cities.

How "francophone" is Francophone Africa actually? I was under the impression that in places like Kinshasa, Dakar, etc. only the upper elites speak French and ordinary people for the most speak indigenous African languages.

[Martin Mtl]

/\ I wish we could have recent, reliable stats about that. I suspect it's very true.

[kwoldtimer]

edit

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

There's no guarantee any of those cities will reach one million. And if some of them do, it will take hundreds of years. At this point, there's no telling if our civilization will last this long.

I think this is a bit overstated. Calgary went from 400,000 people to 1,000,000 people in about 35 years, and Edmonton wasn't much slower than that. That is an exceptional case but it shows it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Maybe some other smaller city in Canada will end up with a really good economy and grow much faster in the future.

Looking at the population estimates, Halifax grew by just under 2% last year to 426,000 people. If this rate were to hold, the metropolitan area would hit 1,000,000 in 2060. I'm not sure how likely that is, but maintaining a constant rate of growth of 2% in a smaller city isn't a super far-fetched assumption. And personally I hope to be around in 2060 although who knows?

That ~2.5x growth is about what happened in the Halifax area from 1951 to 2016. You only need about a 0.9% annual population growth rate to go from 400,000 to 1,000,000 in one century.

It's true though that it's unlikely that any smaller cities will reach one million people for many years.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by koops65

Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but I don't think its much of one... so far, all of the scientists predictions have been off, by being placed too far off in the future... almost all climate models show things getting much worse much faster than was anticipated. You say 50 to 100 years, but what if the reality is only 20 years?

It's possible things will get worse in some unforeseeable way, but in recent years the annual average sea level rise has been a few millimeters. I think it's around 3 mm per year now, and used to be 1 mm per year in the 19th century.

Some specific areas are much more vulnerable because of storm surges, erosion, and subsidence, but none of the coastal Canadian cities are really in that boat.

[balletomane]

Just for fun I thought I would try to calculate what Canada's 20 largest CMAs would be in 2100, based on a UN population projection of 49,668,000. This is also assuming that the effects climate change has on some coastal cities is curbed in order to not severely effect urban areas. Currently, Canada's 20 largest CMAs comprise about 65% of the Canadian population, whereas in my estimates they comprise about 70%. I'm sure some, or most of these estimates are wildly inaccurate, but its for fun anyways...

1. Toronto.............9,798,000
2. Montreal...........5,732,000
3. Vancouver.........4,425,000
4. Calgary.............2,957,000
5. Edmonton.........2,804,000
6. Ottawa.............2,188,000
7. Winnipeg..........1,398,000
8. Hamilton...........1,344,000
9. Quebec.............1,119,000
10. K-C-W.............1,112,000
11. London............965,000
12. Oshawa...........952,000
13. Victoria...........661,000
14. Saskatoon........626,000
15. Halifax............613,000
16. St. Catharines...568,000
17. Regina.............501,000
18. Windsor...........500,000
19. Barrie..............454,000
20. Kelowna...........381,000

[ue]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is an exaggeration. If all of the glaciers in the world melted the sea level would rise by 70 m. A lot of the land very near to coastal locations is above that elevation. I live a few km from salt water but above 100 m in elevation.

Some low-lying areas like Florida are in more trouble but then again they also have many decades to come up with a solution. There are lots of inhabited areas around the world that are below sea level.

A lot of coastal cities already plan for 50 years of 100 years of sea level rise, by making sure newly built stuff can handle an increase of a few meters, with allowance for tides and storm surges.

The reality is somewhere in-between. Per this map, a 60m sea level rise would not completely wipe Vancouver off the map, but much of it would be gone. Richmond, most of Delta, much of the Coquitlams, Maple Ridge, Langely... within the City of Vancouver, the entire downtown peninsula would be submerged, and south of False Creek, everything up to Shaughnessy and Kensington-Cedar Cottage would be gone. Most of East Van, too. Surrey, UBC, up-hill parts of South Van, most of White Rock and New West would be ok, but that's about it. Even Chilliwack would be submerged.

On the East Coast, most of PEI would be washed away. In Halifax, the Citadel would remain, but almost all of the rest of the Halifax Peninsula would be gone. Eastern Passage, Armdale, Burnside, Herring Cove, and large swaths of Bedford and Dartmouth would be gone. Annapolis Valley, Yarmouth, the South Shore would also be largely submerged. Sydney, Moncton, and Saint John would be >90% gone. All of the pre-Confederation parts of St. John's would also disappear.

Hell, further inland, almost all of the Island of Montreal would be gone, save for Mont-Royal. Repentigny, Laval, and the South Shore -- all gone. Much of Quebec City and Victoria would be gone too.

Now, 60m is a very extreme scenario. I believe that we are locked into ~2m of sea level rise already, over centuries. Which is still not good, but more manageable.

[hipster duck]

Is there much immigration from places like DR Congo? I'm sure there are communities in places like suburban Paris, and maybe even a sprinkling in Montreal and Toronto, but given the size of the country (82M - equivalent to Germany or Iran) there really aren't that many.

I'd imagine most of the people who emigrate from Central African countries will be part of the middle class, not the vast lower class, so they'll speak French reasonably well.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is a bit overstated. Calgary went from 400,000 people to 1,000,000 people in about 35 years, and Edmonton wasn't much slower than that. That is an exceptional case but it shows it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Maybe some other smaller city in Canada will end up with a really good economy and grow much faster in the future.

Looking at the population estimates, Halifax grew by just under 2% last year to 426,000 people. If this rate were to hold, the metropolitan area would hit 1,000,000 in 2060. I'm not sure how likely that is, but maintaining a constant rate of growth of 2% in a smaller city isn't a super far-fetched assumption. And personally I hope to be around in 2060 although who knows?

That ~2.5x growth is about what happened in the Halifax area from 1951 to 2016. You only need about a 0.9% annual population growth rate to go from 400,000 to 1,000,000 in one century.

It's true though that it's unlikely that any smaller cities will reach one million people for many years.

Even though Canada is a fast-growing country by developed world standards, and even though the vast majority of that growth headed to the country's cities, it's remarkable how consistent Canada's list of largest cities has been.

Essentially, of the top 10 cities in the 1921 census, 9 are the largest metros today. They traded places, and no city is in the same spot that it was then (except maybe Ottawa), but they're all there, even Calgary.

This is quite a bit different than the US, where people would have thought you were crazy in 1920 if you said that Phoenix, Arizona or Miami, Florida would be among the largest metros, while places like St. Louis or Cleveland would be third tier cities.

I don't think Canada has any "dark horse" cities that will worm their way up to become important out of nothing over the next 50 years.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

Hell, further inland, almost all of the Island of Montreal would be gone, save for Mont-Royal. Repentigny, Laval, and the South Shore -- all gone. Much of Quebec City and Victoria would be gone too.

FWIW, I don't see any scenario ever playing out where it gets decided it's cheaper to abandon both Montreal and Quebec City rather than just building a dam and locks downriver from Quebec City.

Most of these forecasts are complete fiction - I hope we're at least in agreement on that...

[koops65]

Well then, we aren't in agreement... most of these forecasts are made by competent scientists, who have worked for years, or even decades, to produce a body of work that even the layman can understand, namely... the Earth's temperature is rising FAR faster than historical averages... and, we, our children, and their children, are going to suffer the consequences of this...

[speedog]

List of 100 largest cities and towns in Canada by area, wikipedia link, what gives here in Ontario and Quebec?

I have not extensively travelled or even visited those two provinces and as such, educate me as to what is up with such small place (population wise) having such large areas under their control. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

[ue]

Originally Posted by lio45

FWIW, I don't see any scenario ever playing out where it gets decided it's cheaper to abandon both Montreal and Quebec City rather than just building a dam and locks downriver from Quebec City.

Most of these forecasts are complete fiction - I hope we're at least in agreement on that...

Honestly, if we're dealing with +60m sea level rise, I think the sea levels will be the least of our concern, considering the astronomical global average temperature rise required for that to occur (1°C of warming = 2.3m of sea level rise over centuries, IIRC). We'd be Venus before that happens.

But even barring that, I think you're taking things for granted. Since the rise of neoliberalism, the West has been increasingly incompetent at building and maintaining pivotal infrastructure. Now, that mindset could change, but considering how much North Americans like to do what they please with their money and not have it go into taxes, I think it'll be hard on this continent to do so. Alongside that, humans have a tendency to delay the inevitable until it's far too late, and the whole of climate change itself is indicative of that.

Now, who knows what the future holds, and I can definitely see the St Lawrence being dyked or whatever, upriver from Quebec City. I'm just a bit sardonic regarding whether we'll be able to do what's best.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by balletomane

Just for fun I thought I would try to calculate what Canada's 20 largest CMAs would be in 2100, based on a UN population projection of 49,668,000. This is also assuming that the effects climate change has on some coastal cities is curbed in order to not severely effect urban areas. Currently, Canada's 20 largest CMAs comprise about 65% of the Canadian population, whereas in my estimates they comprise about 70%. I'm sure some, or most of these estimates are wildly inaccurate, but its for fun anyways...

1. Toronto.............9,798,000
2. Montreal...........5,732,000
3. Vancouver.........4,425,000
4. Calgary.............2,957,000
5. Edmonton.........2,804,000
6. Ottawa.............2,188,000
7. Winnipeg..........1,398,000
8. Hamilton...........1,344,000
9. Quebec.............1,119,000
10. K-C-W.............1,112,000
11. London............965,000
12. Oshawa...........952,000
13. Victoria...........661,000
14. Saskatoon........626,000
15. Halifax............613,000
16. St. Catharines...568,000
17. Regina.............501,000
18. Windsor...........500,000
19. Barrie..............454,000
20. Kelowna...........381,000

I'm pretty sure that Windsor will hit 500,000 well before 2100, lol.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by koops65

Well then, we aren't in agreement... most of these forecasts are made by competent scientists, who have worked for years, or even decades, to produce a body of work that even the layman can understand, namely... the Earth's temperature is rising FAR faster than historical averages... and, we, our children, and their children, are going to suffer the consequences of this...

60m SLR is a serious forecast "made by competent scientists"? I'm curious to see your sources...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

But even barring that, I think you're taking things for granted. Since the rise of neoliberalism, the West has been increasingly incompetent at building and maintaining pivotal infrastructure. Now, that mindset could change, but considering how much North Americans like to do what they please with their money and not have it go into taxes, I think it'll be hard on this continent to do so. Alongside that, humans have a tendency to delay the inevitable until it's far too late, and the whole of climate change itself is indicative of that.

Sure, but the thing is, dismantling/removing Halifax to rebuild something somewhat equivalent a few kms inland/uphill would ALSO be an astronomically costly operation - much moreso, in my opinion, than just throwing away a mere few billion dollars per coastal city to fend off the rising seas while leaving the cities - with all their costly infrastructure already built and paid for - where they are.

Taxpayers will groan at the cost, no doubt (don't they always do?) but that's nothing compared to how much they'd groan when they'll see the pricetag for any of the alternatives.

The people who live in coastal cities would have to be bought off using eminent domain, some will refuse to leave, etc. I have no doubts the whole relocation mess (including dismantling - you can't just leave Halifax underwater to crumble naturally over the decades, that'd be very dangerous and unecological) would be a hell of a lot more expensive than just dams, locks, dykes, whatever it takes.

The process of SLR is slow enough that I find it unlikely humans won't adapt to it. If a given generation is too stubborn to do anything about it, then surely the next one will be at least slightly more open, and so on. Considering how useful seaports are for global commerce, I find it impossible to believe that humanity would tolerate fluid coastlines that are moving over the centuries. It's cheaper and easier to stabilize them once and for all somewhere fixed - and it's cheaper to do that at the point where all the existing infrastructure already is.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

How "francophone" is Francophone Africa actually? I was under the impression that in places like Kinshasa, Dakar, etc. only the upper elites speak French and ordinary people for the most speak indigenous African languages.

Right now, yes. But we're talking about the coming few decades where the middle class has grown in these places. Knowledge of English was probably pretty rare in the Indian subcontinent back in the 1940s, only spoken by the elites, but now has well over 100 million speakers (still mostly in the upper and middle class, but enough to provide a massive immigration pool for Canada).

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Is there much immigration from places like DR Congo? I'm sure there are communities in places like suburban Paris, and maybe even a sprinkling in Montreal and Toronto, but given the size of the country (82M - equivalent to Germany or Iran) there really aren't that many.

I'd imagine most of the people who emigrate from Central African countries will be part of the middle class, not the vast lower class, so they'll speak French reasonably well.

Currently emigration from these places is minimal due to a small middle class, but economic and educational development is happening in these areas (across all of Africa really, but Canada has to compete with more countries for Anglo-African nations). Just as India, China, or the Philippines provided only a fairly small amount of immigrants to Canada in the 1950s and early due to massive poverty and a small educated class, but saw a huge shift over the next few decades, I see Africa mirroring that pattern (as such I expect that the Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, etc, will also see an upswing in African immigration, and Anglo-African nations like Nigeria will be major sources for all).

Originally Posted by ue

Now, 60m is a very extreme scenario. I believe that we are locked into ~2m of sea level rise already, over centuries. Which is still not good, but more manageable.

The numbers I've seen are usually 1-2m over the course of this century.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

How "francophone" is Francophone Africa actually? I was under the impression that in places like Kinshasa, Dakar, etc. only the upper elites speak French and ordinary people for the most speak indigenous African languages.

As Beedok mentioned, education levels are increasing and in francophone Africa that means people are learning in French.

There are millions of people in Congo or Senegal who only speak Lingala or Wolof but those aren't candidates for immigration to Canada. There are already plenty of educated people who can speak French there and anecdotally speaking, I've never met anyone here from a francophone African country who even *struggled* with French. They've all had high levels of fluency.

It even seems like most of them have transitioned to French as their main family language, as it's extremely rare to hear people speaking African languages in Quebec. If I hear a black family speaking to each other in anything other than French (or English) it's almost always Haitian Creole - which is easily recognizable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Is there much immigration from places like DR Congo? I'm sure there are communities in places like suburban Paris, and maybe even a sprinkling in Montreal and Toronto, but given the size of the country (82M - equivalent to Germany or Iran) there really aren't that many.

I'd imagine most of the people who emigrate from Central African countries will be part of the middle class, not the vast lower class, so they'll speak French reasonably well.

Apparently the Congolese community in Quebec numbers between 15,000 and 20,000 people - the vast majority in the Montreal area. This may not seem like a lot but a a couple of decades ago there were almost none here.

Just off the top of my head without searching, when I think of Congolese I think of:

- a classmate and friend of one of my kids this year
- a daycare provider my kids had when they were younger
- a family that lives down the street
- former NFL player Tshimanga Biakatabuka who grew in Montreal of Congolese parents

I am sure there are others I know or know of if I did a search, and obviously I don't know the national origin of all of the African people I encounter every day.

So yeah, they're there for sure in our humanscape... even in Gatineau.