Canada's Next Major Metropolitan Areas?

[SaskScraper]

^^^ I wonder what large industries and economic drivers could help Newfoundland grow? Is there a possibility of agriculture or fisheries/lobster making a come back?.. agriculture may be hard because St.john get so much snow, one of the snowest city in the world apparently.

it's predicted that Newfoundland/Labrador population will drop 41,000 by 2036 to be less than half million people.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...port-1.4279580

I think its really great that millennials are opening coffee shops and micro breweries in small towns in Newfoundland but the only thing that will really stop declining population & their reliance on federal government transfers would be industries that can help employ the people that already live there. Northern Saskatchewan industries have a mandate to hire people in that area in their industries such as mining.

I think Newfoundland, much like the 3 territories, suffers from being isolated & so far away from major markets for manufactured goods or products that can be sold out of province.

Originally Posted by Loco101

To answer the original question of this thread....The next major metropolitan area would have to be somewhere that would attract lots of immigrants. What city has the most potential to do that?

Originally Posted by kora

2017, immigration to Canada CMAs

Toronto: 86,525
Montreal: 44,615
Vancouver: 29,875
Calgary: 17,895
Edmonton: 15,925
Winnipeg: 11,835
Ottawa: 8,705
Saskatoon: 5,940
Regina: 5,300
Halifax: 3,745

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Prince Rupert, for example, is warmer than the Prairies, Northern Ontario, Ottawa and Quebec. Our second major West Coast port.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Prince Rupert may be warmer in terms of average temperatures but it's the classic example of a mild-but-depressing climate if there ever was one.

Prince Rupert has warmer average annual temp than anywhere in Canada east of the Rockies but so true, not a lot of sunshine but a lot of rain and a fair bit of snow fall each year

[GlassCity]

It would be cool to see more people living in the north, but I don't know if Yellowknife will be it. Whitehorse is significantly warmer, and is actually growing at a very steady clip: +8.4% from 2011-2016, compared to Yellowknife's +1.7%. But I'll also agree that there are still lots of 'gaps' that can be filled before those cities really see growth. Places like Prince Rupert, the Smithers/Terrace area, Prince George, the Peace Region, Fort McMurray, Prince Albert and Northern Manitoba (The Pas, Thompson) are all still C-list cities that might represent a more natural way of moving north.

As far as the next cities to become major metro areas? It's hard to say. It's really difficult for me to imagine any of the current big 8/9 cities getting caught up to by anyone else. I see places like Victoria, Saskatoon, London and Halifax as being the prime areas for future growth, but I still don't see it as being enough to join the other cities in common consciousness.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

Prince Rupert has warmer average annual temp than anywhere in Canada east of the Rockies but so true, not a lot of sunshine but a lot of rain and a fair bit of snow fall each year

It also doesn't have a "real summer" by most people's definition.

In my experience people will endure a lot in terms of winter weather provided there is a decent summer as a "reward" every year.

[GlassCity]

Since we're on the topic, I made this map a while ago of all the CMAs and CAs in Canada. I think it's just interesting to see the distribution of population. While it doesn't show differences in population (Toronto and Swift Current have the same size dot) I still think it's interesting to see what's "settled" and what isn't quite.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vg...OY&usp=sharing

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I feel that if the cities merged that it should be called "Berlin" which was the original settler name for the city and remained until either the first or second world war.

Kitchener (only) was named Berlin from 1854 until it was changed in a sketchy referendum held in 1916. The original settler name was "Sand Hills" and later it became "Ebytown", after the founder, Benjamin Eby. The good burghers of Waterloo would never accept "Berlin" as the name of the merged municipality.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It also doesn't have a "real summer" by most people's definition.

In my experience people will endure a lot in terms of winter weather provided there is a decent summer as a "reward" every year.

That assertion isn't true anyway. Prince Rupert's average is 7.5 and Windsor Airport is 9.9. Halifax Citadel is tied with PR at 7.5. YVR's annual mean of 10.4 is below Windsor Riverside (10.7). Beyond the lack of summer, Prince Rupert gets precipitation on 2/3 of all days and gets only around 1,250 hours of sunshine a year, whereas Vancouver and many other parts of Canada are around 2,000. The lack of sunshine would be really terrible. I would never want to live there.

As for Newfoundland agriculture, the climate is an issue but the bigger problem is that there is very little soil and what's there is of poor quality. This will probably matter less in the future as more and more agriculture will take place in highly controlled factory-like settings. That might actually be pretty nice for Newfoundlanders since it will mean much better access to a wide variety of produce year-round. But I doubt much will be grown there and shipped elsewhere.

I think we might be getting to an era where the strategic geographical location of natural resources doesn't affect the development of cities much. This is already true in a lot of the world; it just hasn't been true in Canada because we are so reliant on natural resources. In the new world, places like Newfoundland might actually be handicapped less. Maybe people will mostly value having a clean, affordable, and stable place to live, and will easily be able to travel longer distances so will be less affected by isolation.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

That assertion isn't true anyway. Prince Rupert's average is 7.5 and Windsor Airport is 9.9. Halifax Citadel is tied with PR at 7.5. YVR's annual mean of 10.4 is below Windsor Riverside (10.7).

....

Fairly or not, Prince Rupert will forever be etched in my mind as s place of refuge for sufferers of porphyria (who cannot take exposure to sunlight).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

What are Canada's next major metropolitan areas? You could look at this question however you please. One way to look at it may be to see which batch of metropolitan areas are likely to hit ~750K people next.

One problem with this perspective is that Canadians' view of what is major is anchored by the size of the largest cities in the country. Now that Toronto is a somewhat major city by international standards, we have much higher standards than we did when the biggest Canadian city was equivalent to Cleveland. London ON at around 500,000 would have easily been considered a major city in the 1960's, or a huge city in the 1910's. Looking at it another way, I have watched population growth for years and people talk about a lot of cities that have grown by 50% in exactly the same way they did 20-30 years ago. I think exactly the same thing is going to happen as today's 500,000 cities grow toward 750,000 while Canada's biggest city becomes a major metropolitan area of 10,000,000 and the world develops much larger megacities that Canadians are more likely to visit.

It is also interesting to look at what happened demographically when cities moved up a "tier". In 1951, Calgary had 129,000 people and Halifax had 162,000 (according to Wikipedia). In 1971, Calgary had 403,000 people and Halifax had 261,000. Both cities were boom towns by today's standards. But only Calgary somewhat moved up in perceived status while Halifax stayed about the same. During this period Calgary was growing by something like 8% a year. Most of the cities that people are speculating about here have only been growing by 1-3% a year.

[WhipperSnapper]

Take Toronto as an example. The number of people it has grown by every year has been pretty consistent from when it was 1 to 2 million to now in the 5 to 6 million range. It comes from the majority of our nation's growth being through a fixed immigration number. Percentage growth is a misrepresentation expanded over a longer term. It will not maintain itself as a community's base population increases. I just don't see any metro in the 200 to 500,000 adding 1 to 5000 people a year joining the uppermost tier of metros that are adding several times more than number even if their current growth rate is significantly higher.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Take Toronto as an example. The number of people it has grown by every year has been pretty consistent from when it was 1 to 2 million to now in the 5 to 6 million range. It comes from the majority of our nation's growth being through a fixed immigration number. Percentage growth is a misrepresentation expanded over a longer term. It will not maintain itself as a community's base population increases. I just don't see any metro in the 200 to 500,000 adding 1 to 5000 people a year joining the uppermost tier of metros that are adding several times more than number even if their current growth rate is significantly higher.

Yes, I have noticed this too.

Traditionally the notion of population growth was based around natural increase, which is an exponential process. You have more babies and then the babies have more babies and the net change grows over time with the base population. But migration is only sometimes like this (e.g. if companies attract new business proportional to their size, or if there are constraints in building new housing for people), and isn't when there are fixed regulations like immigration caps.

A lot of the demographic trends that people try to decipher on SSP come down to immigration caps. Immigration to Manitoba and Saskatchewan spiked a few years ago because of the provincial nominee programs. The Atlantic provinces are just catching up to this now. Under the previous federal government the Atlantic provinces had extremely low caps. For example, Manitoba's cap was 5,000 and Nova Scotia's was 700. Back in this era many people were confused and thought that NS had low immigration simply because nobody wanted to move there because the economy was bad and nothing could be done. But lo and behold, the caps were raised and now the growth rate is up.

[Razor]

If in 50 years from now, the rankings pretty much stay the same, then define "next major city?". If by then, Hamilton has 2 million people, Regina hits 750,000 and KW has 1.5 million, it's Pretty much status quo if all the other cities grow at the same rate. Like another poster mentioned, London or KW would still be our Cleveland no matter what their respective sizes are if that's the case.

Now if during that time, things went gang busters for KW and it overtook saay Ottawa, or Edmonton, then our Cleveland would change rankings and become our Boston or something similar..Lots can happen..Los Angeles came out of nowhere. Ditto for some of our now major cities. Now if places like Fort Mac exploded, then things can get interesting, because there would be a new major city coming out of nowhere more or less..If our future became truly dystopian due to global warming and places around the equator became inhabitable, and our North more arable then I guess Yellowknife can also become something major..I hate to see our Northern cities grow because of that though..On another note, I spoke with an Inuit lady all not that long ago, and she said she is already seeing dandelions grow in Iqaluit..Apparently, that is a new thing.

[WhipperSnapper]

Immigration should tail off too as the most populous countries modernize. China has already see the real numbers drop to a 1/3rd in 10 years (5 million now instead of 15 million people added per year) and it's still declining. India has been slower but, it is still happening there as well.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Immigration should tail off too as the most populous countries modernize. China has already see the real numbers drop to a 1/3rd in 10 years (5 million now instead of 15 million people added per year) and it's still declining. India has been slower but, it is still happening there as well.

And that's a good thing..I remember an environmental teacher in college telling us that the world can safely sustain 30 billion people. Spread out obviously.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Razor

And that's a good thing..I remember an environmental teacher in college telling us that the world can safely sustain 30 billion people. Spread out obviously.

Had a few geography professors say similar things, though I don't remember the exact number. The world isn't overpopulated, we're just tremendously wasteful with our resources.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Razor

If in 50 years from now, the rankings pretty much stay the same, then define "next major city?". If by then, Hamilton has 2 million people, Regina hits 750,000 and KW has 1.5 million, it's Pretty much status quo if all the other cities grow at the same rate. Like another poster mentioned, London or KW would still be our Cleveland no matter what their respective sizes are if that's the case.

I guess thats the thing, if every city in Canada grows at exactly the same rate then there would never be a change in their relative respective sizes.

Cities like Saskatoon though have added more people in absolute numbers in the last few years than cities like Quebec City or Hamilton.
So where as Quebec City and Hamilton may grow to 850,000 in a decades time, a city like Saskatoon that's growing 10,000/year would gain some distance to be half the size of each of Quebec City & Hamilton, even though Saskatoon has never been as large as half the size of QC or Ham ever before.
Saskatoon will probably gain on distance each decade after as well, closing the difference in size again.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, I have noticed this too.

Traditionally the notion of population growth was based around natural increase, which is an exponential process. You have more babies and then the babies have more babies and the net change grows over time with the base population. But migration is only sometimes like this (e.g. if companies attract new business proportional to their size, or if there are constraints in building new housing for people), and isn't when there are fixed regulations like immigration caps.

A lot of the demographic trends that people try to decipher on SSP come down to immigration caps. Immigration to Manitoba and Saskatchewan spiked a few years ago because of the provincial nominee programs. The Atlantic provinces are just catching up to this now. Under the previous federal government the Atlantic provinces had extremely low caps. For example, Manitoba's cap was 5,000 and Nova Scotia's was 700. Back in this era many people were confused and thought that NS had low immigration simply because nobody wanted to move there because the economy was bad and nothing could be done. But lo and behold, the caps were raised and now the growth rate is up.

There's also less of an influence of interprovincial migration in Canada in shaping the fates of regions (yes, some loss or gain of population happens such as from the Maritimes to Ontario, or the westward migrations to Alberta when economic times are good there). Unlike the US though, it's far less drastic, where one region can gain strongly from another region's loss of population. For example, the rise of the Sunbelt and Florida's population growth from colder US cities and states. Or the loss of population from the Midwest spurring growth in other regions.

Canada's provinces seem much more focused on growing by getting immigrants from abroad to move there (eg. the attempts by Atlantic Canada or places like Saskatchewan to attract immigrants and make themselves look attractive while competing with the bigger traditional immigration gateways like Toronto etc.), not as much from say getting Canadians from another region to come and move in. While, the US (though immigration is still a big thing) seems to do more with viewing domestic transplants as the source of growth.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, I have noticed this too.

Traditionally the notion of population growth was based around natural increase, which is an exponential process. You have more babies and then the babies have more babies and the net change grows over time with the base population. But migration is only sometimes like this (e.g. if companies attract new business proportional to their size, or if there are constraints in building new housing for people), and isn't when there are fixed regulations like immigration caps.

But immigrants themselves have babies, who are future Canadians. If immigrants' children and children's children have preferences on whether they stay in the places their parents and grandparents first settled, as opposed to moving to other areas, that can play a role.

However, then again, I think immigrants' fertility rates are not that much higher than native-born Canadians anyways.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But immigrants themselves have babies, who are future Canadians. If immigrants' children and children's children have preferences on whether they stay in the places their parents and grandparents first settled, as opposed to moving to other areas, that can play a role.

The growth rate has a natural increase component and a migration component, sure. But when it comes to most fast-growing cities in North America, the migration component is much larger than the natural increase component.

For example here in metro Vancouver the growth is more than 80% attributable to immigration. Toronto is probably similar.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It would be cool to see more people living in the north, but I don't know if Yellowknife will be it. Whitehorse is significantly warmer, and is actually growing at a very steady clip: +8.4% from 2011-2016, compared to Yellowknife's +1.7%. But I'll also agree that there are still lots of 'gaps' that can be filled before those cities really see growth. Places like Prince Rupert, the Smithers/Terrace area, Prince George, the Peace Region, Fort McMurray, Prince Albert and Northern Manitoba (The Pas, Thompson) are all still C-list cities that might represent a more natural way of moving north.

As far as the next cities to become major metro areas? It's hard to say. It's really difficult for me to imagine any of the current big 8/9 cities getting caught up to by anyone else. I see places like Victoria, Saskatoon, London and Halifax as being the prime areas for future growth, but I still don't see it as being enough to join the other cities in common consciousness.

No offense to Winnipeg, but I look at Winnipeg, a healthy, growing metropolitan area that isn't driven by idiosyncratic economic realities like natural resources, as the coldest healthy major Canadian city. If temperatures are warmer than or roughly similar to Winnipeg, I think the city can be viable (although of course there are many other factors).

By that measure, I think Northern Ontario, the Peace Region, Prince George and south thereof in Central Interior BC, North Coast of BC (Prince Rupert), and Whitehorse are all pretty great for natural northern settlement.