Census Metropolitan Area Population 2007-2011

[MolsonExport]

damn you, beer.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Surprised to see Victoria not growing that fast, I always assumed that it was like a Vancouver junior in that department.

I feel the opposite, an increase of 17 000+ for a Metro between 350 000 and 400 000 is pretty good IMO.

[espalorius]

holy shit I didn't know saskatoon is pushing up on 300 000! I honestly thought it just passed 200 000.

[Razor]

As far as what number to "hold", I'm more apt to go with the official census,as it is a physical count vs. formulas, and stats/estimates gathered from housing starts etc. Not an exact science..You would think that the % of people that don't respond would be roughly the same in every city..You wouldn't get say 5% in Vancouver, and 10% in Montreal..I heard a 3% bandied around as an under count...Anyways, Whatever Wiiki says, I'm going with..ha..They seem to mirror any official number, unless any-one can feed them randomn figures ..I don't know...And now I just read that^ stats can link, so I don't know what to think ..I guess 2013 will tell the real tale..I still say Montreal will be 3999998, and Ottawa will still be ahead of Calgary by one fat -cat civil servant.

Originally Posted by espalorius

holy shit I didn't know saskatoon is pushing up on 300 000! I honestly thought it just passed 200 000.

I think that 300,000-500,000 is a great size for a city btw..Good on Saskatoon.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by espalorius

holy shit I didn't know saskatoon is pushing up on 300 000! I honestly thought it just passed 200 000.

Right!! I forgot Saskatoon passed the 200 000 population milestone back in the 1990's At this rate, it should be in the 300 000's by the next Census Canada enumeration

[Robertpuant]

Originally Posted by espalorius

holy shit I didn't know saskatoon is pushing up on 300 000! I honestly thought it just passed 200 000.

How exciting it must be to live in Saskatoon in this day and age!

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by Robertpuant

How exciting it must be to live in Saskatoon in this day and age!

A lot better than living in Regina....

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Razor

I think that 300,000-500,000 is a great size for a city btw..Good on Saskatoon.

I read a study that tried to quantify what sized population was optimal. The argument was that a city needs to reach a certain size before it becomes a magnet for business, skilled people, entertainment, subways, major exhibits, etc. The accompanying argument was that once cities grow beyond a certain point, negative qualities like pollution, congestion, crime, cost of living start to outweigh the positives.

If memory serves me correctly, they concluded that cities start hitting their stride when they reach 1.5 million people. I think Vancouver really started getting to that critical mass size when they hit 1.5 million people. That's when people started viewing Vancouver as a legitimate big city option, subway construction took off, BC Place was built, etc.

I think there's a lot of truth to their argument. 300,000-500,000 is fine, but I think at that size your young talent still tend to leave in search of excitement/opportunity in larger centres. It's great to see Saskatoon booming, but it needs to get a lot bigger.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by flar

It will be a moot point if one more person moves into Caledonia in the next 5 years. Hamilton CMA will gain 50,000 people instantly.

Haldimand county couldn't pop out just one baby or a recent immigrant in order for Hamilton to grow another 50,000? Ugh.

Should be interesting over the decade, Haldimand will be added to Hamilton's CMA and possibly down the road Norfolk county as well (Simcoe, Port Dover, etc). That would really speed up Hamilton's CMA reaching the 1 million mark.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I read a study that tried to quantify what sized population was optimal. The argument was that a city needs to reach a certain size before it becomes a magnet for business, skilled people, entertainment, subways, major exhibits, etc. The accompanying argument was that once cities grow beyond a certain point, negative qualities like pollution, congestion, crime, cost of living start to outweigh the positives.

If memory serves me correctly, they concluded that cities start hitting their stride when they reach 1.5 million people. I think Vancouver really started getting to that critical mass size when they hit 1.5 million people. That's when people started viewing Vancouver as a legitimate big city option, subway construction took off, BC Place was built, etc.

I think there's a lot of truth to their argument. 300,000-500,000 is fine, but I think at that size your young talent still tend to leave in search of excitement/opportunity in larger centres. It's great to see Saskatoon booming, but it needs to get a lot bigger.

I have heard similar things, but there must be different methodology's. The number i have heard was around the 800,000 - 850,000. At this point things seem to snowball. For really weak examples i don't seem to remember Calgary, Edmonton or Ottawa being in the 800,000 to 1,000,000 range for very long. Your number of 1.5 million seems to make more sense in terms of critical mass and ability to self sustain.

I don't know where i read this but i would like to see more studies on this subject. I will try that internet thing and see if it will tell me.

[reidjr]

isaidso
As a rule when the youth want to work and get paid well they will go where the jobs are it does not matter if the city is small or big if there are job that is where people will go.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by reidjr

isaidso
As a rule when the youth want to work and get paid well they will go where the jobs are it does not matter if the city is small or big if there are job that is where people will go.

Employment opportunities are important, but the young/smart/upwardly mobile aren't going to stick around in some city where there's nothing to do. About 80% of my friends packed up and left for Toronto, Montreal, New York, Osaka, London and it wasn't for a job. They went because Halifax was too damn small. If there were 1.5 million people in Halifax and some of the amenties/entertainment options that go along with that, many of them would have been convinced to stay.

I love Halifax, but it would need to quadruple in size for me to consider moving back there. No subway, no great museums, shitty shopping, few theatre options, no ballet, no opera, no zoo, no aquarium, you run into the same person 5 times in one day, limited concert options, few galleries, no CFL, no baseball team, and none of that big city excitement. Size does matter.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Razor

As far as what number to "hold", I'm more apt to go with the official census,as it is a physical count vs. formulas, and stats/estimates gathered from housing starts etc. Not an exact science..You would think that the % of people that don't respond would be roughly the same in every city..You wouldn't get say 5% in Vancouver, and 10% in Montreal..I heard a 3% bandied around as an under count...Anyways, Whatever Wiiki says, I'm going with..ha..They seem to mirror any official number, unless any-one can feed them randomn figures ..I don't know...And now I just read that^ stats can link, so I don't know what to think ..I guess 2013 will tell the real tale..I still say Montreal will be 3999998, and Ottawa will still be ahead of Calgary by one fat -cat civil servant.



I think that 300,000-500,000 is a great size for a city btw..Good on Saskatoon.

The site tells you the problem with this kind of thinking. It would be completely different for every city. For example, the year the census was taken 2011, a very large number of people in Winnipeg's CMA were displaced due flooding and were transported to other regions temporarily until it was safe to return. Those kinds of things, along with students. If you have a school with 30 000 students, that could potentially sway your count by that much. Same thing with business trips. If a man has a house in Vancouver, but his family lives in Calgary, he is counted in both cities, or maybe just one. Either way to count each and every individual in a city is impossible, and so going with the formula's and equations would be the most accurate way to get a count.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Biff

I have heard similar things, but there must be different methodology's. The number i have heard was around the 800,000 - 850,000. At this point things seem to snowball. For really weak examples i don't seem to remember Calgary, Edmonton or Ottawa being in the 800,000 to 1,000,000 range for very long. Your number of 1.5 million seems to make more sense in terms of critical mass and ability to self sustain.

I don't know where i read this but i would like to see more studies on this subject. I will try that internet thing and see if it will tell me.

Let me know if you stumble across something online. I remember looking a little while back and couldn't find anything. It must be out there somewhere. Regarding Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton, things are just starting to get interesting. They're making the transition from big town to small city. Up till now, there's really only been 3 city options in this country.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Employment opportunities are important, but the young/smart/upwardly mobile aren't going to stick around in some city where there's nothing to do. About 80% of my friends packed up and left for Toronto, Montreal, New York, Osaka, London and it wasn't for a job. They went because Halifax was too damn small. If there were 1.5 million people in Halifax and some of the amenties/entertainment options that go along with that, many of them would have been convinced to stay.

I love Halifax, but it would need to quadruple in size for me to consider moving back there.

A city does not have to be big in terms of population for it to be a good city look at Ottawa sure its pop is 1.2 million but there is a ton to do and it is a good city you can say the same about Calgary and Edmonton a city that has a huge pop does not means its better then citys smaller each time many citys are not that bad in terms of size.Now with that said sure some city's less then 300,000 maybe hard to live in but there are a good amount of city's under 2 million that do have a fair amount to do some more then others but to assume all city's under 2 million are boring its just not true.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Employment opportunities are important, but the young/smart/upwardly mobile aren't going to stick around in some city where there's nothing to do. About 80% of my friends packed up and left for Toronto, Montreal, New York, Osaka, London and it wasn't for a job. They went because Halifax was too damn small. If there were 1.5 million people in Halifax and some of the amenties/entertainment options that go along with that, many of them would have been convinced to stay.

I love Halifax, but it would need to quadruple in size for me to consider moving back there. No subway, no great museums, shitty shopping, few theatre options, no ballet, no opera, no zoo, no aquarium, you run into the same person 5 times in one day, limited concert options, few galleries, no CFL, no baseball team, and none of that big city excitement. Size does matter.

Moncton has a zoo (Magnetic Hill Zoo - rated 4th best in the country), a ballet company (Atlantic Ballet Theatre of Canada), and hosts the odd CFL game. Moncton also has the fifth highest growth rate in the country. You should give us a try!

[Biff]

Originally Posted by reidjr

A city does not have to be big in terms of population for it to be a good city look at Ottawa sure its pop is 1.2 million but there is a ton to do

Ottawa is probably a bad example of a "smaller" city with tons to do. Because it is a National Capital it has amenities, museums and other cultural facilities that similar sized (or even bigger centers) cities would not have.

......for the record, i don't think Ottawa is small. I just used that for the sake of this discussion.

[kool maudit]

ottawa is definitely a city, but definitely not a metropolis. it has things the halifaxes of the country lack, but the general tone and tenor of people and their urban expectations here is basically in line with what i remember from the 902.

(it's things like talking to cashiers too much, a certain laziness on the part of cab drivers, weird inexplicable dead zones where all the restaurants are closed... it's cumulative.)

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Biff

Ottawa is probably a bad example of a "smaller" city with tons to do. Because it is a National Capital it has amenities, museums and other cultural facilities that similar sized (or even bigger centers) cities would not have.

......for the record, i don't think Ottawa is small. I just used that for the sake of this discussion.

Ottawa as a rule gets a bad rap people think there is nothing to do etc then when you point out how much there is they say there were unaware its not a mega city but its not that abd as some make it out to be.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

ottawa is definitely a city, but definitely not a metropolis. it has things the halifaxes of the country lack, but the general tone and tenor of people and their urban expectations here is basically in line with what i remember from the 902.

(it's things like talking to cashiers too much, a certain laziness on the part of cab drivers, weird inexplicable dead zones where all the restaurants are closed... it's cumulative.)

Ottawa does have a nice mix of thigns that yes city's of the same size but they also have thing that larger citys have the arts and culture scene for exzample is a fair size as for resturants etc most of them are open untill 11 as for people are lazy that goes on every city.