Canada's Next Major Metropolitan Areas?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

some SSP forumers aren't just all about climate but are fanatical about temperature in particular. They rarely mention precipitation but will tend to declare that the sky is falling all the time even though their city is about average temperature during that week/month/season.

Also some SSP forumers can be living in the snowest, windest, foggest, cloudest, rainest, what-have-you place in Canada but declare that there locale is one of the 'mildest' places in Canada.

That's food for thought, fahrenheit scale may very well have been based on a scale from 1 to a 100 considering a human comfort factor.

I can tell you that Timmins, ON is overall quite cold, cloudy and nearly all days have at least some precipitation. And we're located at only 48 degrees North. The only positive thing I can think of is that our Winters are less windy than those South of us. But we do get some days with horrible windchills.

I do know for sure that our climate has certainly caused quite a bit of our population decline. Sure the cold is bad enough but come Summer we put up with a lot of cool, cloudy and rainy/drizzly days. It's rare to be comfortable outside.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing is that the world's biggest cities have variable coldness in winter, but you have to get pretty far down the list to find a city that does not average over 20C for a max in mid-summer.

Just a couple of examples of substantial settlements that fit that temperature criteria -- Bergen, Norway (420K people) and Reykjavik (215K people). But you're right, there probably aren't many and maybe none as far as really major metropolitan areas. Prince Rupert is something like 13K people though.

I do like overcast conditions and cool temperatures that don't vary much, but seems like that's not a popular view.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another thing is that the world's biggest cities have variable coldness in winter, but you have to get pretty far down the list to find a city that does not average over 20C for a max in mid-summer.

Well, I don't think the area of the world that's under 20C in summer as a max is that populated to begin with. They're often either boreal climates or really oceanic climates far from the equator (eg. northern British Isles, Iceland etc. with some outliers farther south like northern California etc. though a place like Eureka, CA is only a small city), or highland climates (like La Paz, Bolivia).

I'm sure part of this is also that agricultural production is far less in places with cool summers. You can still grow lots of crops in places with cold winters, if you have a solid few months of warm summer. But a cool summer growing season (even if it has mild winters to extend the growing season) probably is challenging (potatoes can probably work though in some of these climates, plus you can have grazing since grass can grow). The amount of food produced likely wouldn't be high. Of course, nowadays, cities don't have to be near agricultural areas, but historically it makes sense why these areas have lower populations.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Just a couple of examples of substantial settlements that fit that temperature criteria -- Bergen, Norway (420K people) and Reykjavik (215K people). But you're right, there probably aren't many and maybe none as far as really major metropolitan areas. Prince Rupert is something like 13K people though.

I do like overcast conditions and cool temperatures that don't vary much, but seems like that's not a popular view.

Also, La Paz, Bolivia (over three quarters of a million), but metro area is larger. Leeds is similar. And Glasgow (615 K, over a million in the metro). Dublin just barely makes 20C or a little above. But these have cool summers and mild winters, not cool summers and cold winters, (not much difference in the case of the highland tropical La Paz whose temperature is mostly the same year round).

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Also, La Paz, Bolivia (over three quarters of a million), but metro area is larger. Leeds is similar. And Glasgow (615 K, over a million in the metro). Dublin just barely makes 20C or a little above. But these have cool summers and mild winters, not cool summers and cold winters, (not much difference in the case of the highland tropical La Paz whose temperature is mostly the same year round).

Great examples.

I think Prince Rupert has mild winters. Daytime January average high of 5.6C, low of -0.8C. That said, it's probably colder than your examples, and certainly La Paz which is very steady in temperatures.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

For sure. There are settled areas with suitable climate like southern Interior BC, southwestern Ontario, and the Maritimes that are pretty underpopulated relatively speaking.

Vancouver Island too.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Since that will not happen (unless you count Uptown, a denser Mid-Town, and Downtown as a single K-W centre of the future), one asks "why"? What is the problem if K-W has two urban centres, and Cambridge a third? Since all three are growing that seems the most likely urban form.

Certainly a fair question but I would say that it has to do with critical mass. I don't mean a downtown as in a single center of business. I'm referring to marketing and the acknowledgement of a single center for the region in popular culture. It's the difference between Los Angeles marketing itself and Fontana, California doing the same. Where's Fontana? Right next to L.A. but you'll get a hell of a lot more advertising by contributing to a fund that markets L.A. and its region than you will by going it alone. Nobody says "I'm flying to Fontana on Thursday." Well, same for K/W/C/G...have it be Kitchener (or whichever, it's rather arbitrary) and use the entire region's mass to attract business.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Certainly a fair question but I would say that it has to do with critical mass. I don't mean a downtown as in a single center of business. I'm referring to marketing and the acknowledgement of a single center for the region in popular culture. It's the difference between Los Angeles marketing itself and Fontana, California doing the same. Where's Fontana? Right next to L.A. but you'll get a hell of a lot more advertising by contributing to a fund that markets L.A. and its region than you will by going it alone. Nobody says "I'm flying to Fontana on Thursday." Well, same for K/W/C/G...have it be Kitchener (or whichever, it's rather arbitrary) and use the entire region's mass to attract business.

Well said. KWCG needs a name.

I suggest Grand River or Waterloo.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I can tell you that Timmins, ON is overall quite cold, cloudy and nearly all days have at least some precipitation. And we're located at only 48 degrees North. The only positive thing I can think of is that our Winters are less windy than those South of us. But we do get some days with horrible windchills.

I do know for sure that our climate has certainly caused quite a bit of our population decline. Sure the cold is bad enough but come Summer we put up with a lot of cool, cloudy and rainy/drizzly days. It's rare to be comfortable outside.

Timmins and NE Ontario in general is still totally tolerable for a lot of people, though only on a borderline level I'd say.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Well, I don't think the area of the world that's under 20C in summer as a max is that populated to begin with. They're often either boreal climates or really oceanic climates far from the equator (eg. northern British Isles, Iceland etc. with some outliers farther south like northern California etc. though a place like Eureka, CA is only a small city), or highland climates (like La Paz, Bolivia).

I'm sure part of this is also that agricultural production is far less in places with cool summers. You can still grow lots of crops in places with cold winters, if you have a solid few months of warm summer. But a cool summer growing season (even if it has mild winters to extend the growing season) probably is challenging (potatoes can probably work though in some of these climates, plus you can have grazing since grass can grow). The amount of food produced likely wouldn't be high. Of course, nowadays, cities don't have to be near agricultural areas, but historically it makes sense why these areas have lower populations.

That is a good point about agriculture. A lot of colder areas have decent-sized "legacy" populations that go back to the age of subsistence agriculture. Or of the age before air conditioning when cool(ish) temperatures for much of the year were not seen as a bad thing due to industrial activities.

But people didn't empty vacate these regions en masse just because hotter places became easier to live in due to AC and other factors.

And in the U.S. where you have a broader climate range than us many colder metros like the Twin Cities, Seattle and Denver are still growing faster than many metros with so-called "perfect" climates.

[KnoxfordGuy]

This thread is boring now. Climate climate climate.

[matt602]

I feel like the Niagara region will be one to watch as people are becoming increasingly pushed out of the GTA, which now includes Hamilton. The new LRT in KW is probably going to intensify the city by quite a bit but I think the most dramatic changes will be in Niagara, specifically St. Catharines.

[ssiguy]

I agree that Niagara is a bit of a sleeper.

It has excellent road connections, regular GO service is coming, housing is very affordable, it has a rather pleasant climate, pretty countryside, and many pretty little towns. Niagara is a bit of a gem and I think people are starting to realize that.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree that Niagara is a bit of a sleeper.

It has excellent road connections, regular GO service is coming, housing is very affordable, it has a rather pleasant climate, pretty countryside, and many pretty little towns. Niagara is a bit of a gem and I think people are starting to realize that.

I really don't see Niagara region as the next big metro anytime soon. The biggest reason is the lack of jobs. We all know that the region has a huge tourist attraction, but outside of that, it is not really a magnet for companies and jobs. Also, it is similar to Kitchener where it is divided into multiple cities/towns, only K/W's cities are far bigger.

I would say that the next cities of Canada are Kitchener, London and Halifax. Kitchener is a tech hub growing rapidly and has good infrastructure. Halifax is the hub of the east and London is actually growing because it's an affordable alternative to the GTA. Families and seniors are selling houses and moving to the London area in big numbers and it is positioned in SW Ontario as a regional centre.

[geotag277]

I think Victoria has too many disadvantages. I also don't think Victoria really wants to evolve into a major metropolis.

Being a remote island settlement makes things logistically challenging for growing past a certain point, and maintaining a sustainable level of constant growth (including business, immigrants, opportunities, trade, exchange of goods, etc.) is going to put it at a natural disadvantage to taking that next step in growth.

It goes back to why Victoria was settled in the first place - it was always about security and strategic land use. If Canada's border was far south of Vancouver, I doubt there would even be a sizeable settlement on Victoria at all.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Well said. KWCG needs a name.

I suggest Grand River or Waterloo.

For international economic development marketing, it's already "Waterloo".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=lhNx2kPIFG8

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Timmins and NE Ontario in general is still totally tolerable for a lot of people, though only on a borderline level I'd say.

Sudbury, North Bay and SSM are quite tolerable, too, in NE ON.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree that Niagara is a bit of a sleeper.

It has excellent road connections, regular GO service is coming, housing is very affordable, it has a rather pleasant climate, pretty countryside, and many pretty little towns. Niagara is a bit of a gem and I think people are starting to realize that.

Once that GO service is electrified and all-day two-way... I think Niagara will begin to rapidly grow.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

For international economic development marketing, it's already "Waterloo".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=lhNx2kPIFG8

I like it. Waterloo it is.

[MolsonExport]

This thread has been quite Saskawooty.