Statscan CMA Projections 2031

dennis1 · #1 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 4:37 PM**

In light of the recent talk of population, here are the CMA projections for 2031

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-551-...tbl028-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-551-...pp-ann-eng.htm
Toronto 9,764,000
Montréal 5,275,000
Vancouver 3,783,000 (Lower Mainland 4,173,637) (via http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/po...owsperpage=all)
Calgary 2,003,000
Ottawa Hull 1,679,000
Edmonton 1,627,000
Winnipeg 945,000
Hamilton 984,000
Regina 222,000
Saskatoon 277,000

SteelTown · #2 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 4:44 PM**

They got Quebec City as 719,000 for 2031. That's a big slow down.

So it looks like Hamilton will be the next to hit the one million mark.

shreddog · #3 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 4:46 PM**

^^ That's the high growth rate scenario ... optimist, but unlikely.

shreddog · #4 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 4:48 PM**

And T Bay rockets to 136K in the high growth scenario or 124K in the low growth. Where will everyone live???

le calmar · #5 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 4:49 PM**

If 719,000 is the optimist scenario for Quebec City, imagine the pessimist one! But it's surprising as the city keep growing at an honorable rate.

drew · #6 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:02 PM**

Calgary is projected to basically double again in the next 20 years?

Really?

Calgarian · #7 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

Calgary is projected to basically double again in the next 20 years?

Really?

It's not impossible, we were about 700 000 20 years ago, now we are 1 200 000.

Calgarian · #8 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:12 PM**

Imagine what the skylines will look like in 2031!

Acajack · #9 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:30 PM**

Unless I am reading them wrong, the Quebec City numbers sound like a mistake.

shreddog · #10 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by le calmar

If 719,000 is the optimist scenario for Quebec City, imagine the pessimist one!

Low growth scenario has QC at 664K.

Wishblade · #11 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:44 PM**

Yeah, there are some problems with the list for sure.

For Halifax it shows the high growth at 438k and low at 398k. Were already passed the low mark, and at current growth in 20 years our number should be around 500k. And looking at other cities, the numbers don't seem right for a few of em.

Acajack · #12 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

Low growth scenario has QC at 664K.

Which is I believe about 50,000 less than the current metro population.

shreddog · #13 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Unless I am reading them wrong, the Quebec City numbers sound like a mistake.

Why? Statscan has access to all kinds of information that you don't. Details like demographics, brith/death rates, municipal planning details, etc. While no one is beyond screwups, just because someone doesn't like how a city looks on the list doesn't mean that SC isn't right in their forecast.

dennis1 · #14 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Unless I am reading them wrong, the Quebec City numbers sound like a mistake.

Hey Everyone for Quebec City always add it with Chaudière-Appalaches or Levis-Saint Georges

Quebec City, 1,207,346 (2031)
Capitale Nationale
2006 687,810
2031 767,596

Chaudière-Appalaches
2006 403,811
2031 438,878

shreddog · #15 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Which is I believe about 50,000 less than the current metro population.

And T Bay's low growth scenario is less than its population in 1983. QC current median age is 41.7 - perhaps the SC model shows it entering a negative growth stage due to declining births (aging population) and low immigration levels. Without access to their models and data, you cannot say they screwed up. Remember, this is alow growth (in immigration) model.

shreddog · #16 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dennis1

Hey Everyone for Quebec City always add it with Chaudière-Appalaches or Levis-Saint Georges

Quebec City, 1,207,346 (2031)
Capitale Nationale
2006 687,810
2031 767,596

Chaudière-Appalaches
2006 403,811
2031 438,878

Why?

dennis1 · #17 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:56 PM**

Personall I'm shocked with MTL at 5 million.

dennis1 · #18 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

Why?

More accurate representation. Even Calgary is missing some areas.

EDIT: Lets get back on topic though.

MTLskyline · #19 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 5:57 PM**

Well 95% Quebec City's growth pretty much depends on procreation. At least, for the time being. As the birth rate dwindles, so does QC's population.

Acajack · #20 Posted **Mar 16, 2010, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shreddog

Why? Statscan has access to all kinds of information that you don't. Details like demographics, brith/death rates, municipal planning details, etc. While no one is beyond screwups, just because someone doesn't like how a city looks on the list doesn't mean that SC isn't right in their forecast.

I don't live in Quebec City, have never lived there, and don't really care how it looks on the list.

I just find it odd that a city which has grown at one and a half times the rate of Winnipeg in the most recent census period and at close to the same rate as Hamilton, could slow down so dramatically to the point where it could totally stagnate or even lose population over the next 20 years, whereas the other two could potentially gain almost 200,000 each.