HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 2:03 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal View Post
"Patsy?"

lol
Patsy is awesome. It's like 1920's Chicago gangster slang.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 2:12 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
The outward growth is at least 50 years old and had many causes. The city of Halifax was the peninsula until the city grabbed a part of the county beyond Armdale rotary. Dartmouth population exploded after the construction of the MacDonald bridge and at the time of the 1995 amalgamation the city had as many people as peninsula Halifax.
Here is the population of peninsula Halifax from 1871-2011 ( official census)
1871 : 29,582
1881 : 36,100
1891 : 38,437
1901 : 40,832
1911 : 46,619
1921 : 58,372
1931 : 59,275
1941 : 70,488
1951 : 85,589
1961 : 92,511
1971 : 79,240
1981 : 65,943
1991 : 63,035
2001 : 61,584
2011 : 62,900
I've seen these stats before and I find it very hard to believe that in 1961 there were 29,611 more people on the peninsula then in 2011.

Where did they live? That is 60 large footprint 10 storey buildings with no new apartment buildings built since 1961. Impossible.
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 2:27 AM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
I've seen these stats before and I find it very hard to believe that in 1961 there were 29,611 more people on the peninsula then in 2011.

Where did they live? That is 60 large footprint 10 storey buildings with no new apartment buildings built since 1961. Impossible.
The drop seems to correspond to a drop in fertility rate, which translates to smaller family sizes. In order to recover that population on the peninsula many more housing units of smaller families are required (many housing units, which include apartments, now consist of 1 to 2 people).

(source: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=35 )


During that time, average population growth rates have also declined.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 2:54 AM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire View Post
I've seen these stats before and I find it very hard to believe that in 1961 there were 29,611 more people on the peninsula then in 2011.

Where did they live? That is 60 large footprint 10 storey buildings with no new apartment buildings built since 1961. Impossible.
I find it pretty easy to believe--it's incredible the density you can achieve with just consistently built up, modestly sized, two-storey houses of the kind the peninsula would've been covered with back in the 60s, many of which have since been demolished for parking lots, warehouses, autobody shops, etc. (This is why I suggested on another thread that the North End's population could probably be doubled or tripled without tearing down a single old house--the 20th century did an efficient job of that already, in the process creating a lot of gaps in the urban fabric ripe for refilling.)

In any case, a lot of city centres are less populated today than at their historical peak. Manhattan is the classic example: In 1910, there were over 2.3 million people on the island. Today, even with a bursting skyline, and a booming economy, there are just 1.6 million.

As far as the lack of mi-rise and high-rise in 1960s Halifax, there's actually compelling evidence that when cities grow beyond six or so storeys, they lose density, as per this table looking at the population densities of neighbourhoods in Berlin.



This is both because extremely tall buildings tend to have larger footprints and more space in between, and also because ever-widening elevator shafts eat up dwelling room. Similar results have been found in other cities on other continents. About a six to eight storey height, built uniformly over an urban area, is ideal for density. Of course, with a lower established vernacular, Canadian cities, including Halifax, have missed that boat, so towers are useful to compensate--but towers don't necessarily always equal high density, and an entirely low-rise Halifax could easily have been more dense than today's.

Fenwick is also right that family sizes in Canada are a lot smaller than in the past, meaning that there are a lot fewer people per household than in the past. I did a study a few years ago looking at census tracts in Toronto's central west end--the wealthiest tracts actually lost population between 2001 and 2006, and again between 2006 and 2011, as homeowners bought houses that had been converted years ago into small apartment buildings, and re-converted back them into single-family dwellings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 3:34 AM
pblaauw pblaauw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Patsy is awesome. It's like 1920's Chicago gangster slang.
Also possibly 1940s diner waitress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 3:34 AM
counterfactual counterfactual is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
I find it pretty easy to believe--it's incredible the density you can achieve with just consistently built up, modestly sized, two-storey houses of the kind the peninsula would've been covered with back in the 60s, many of which have since been demolished for parking lots, warehouses, autobody shops, etc. (This is why I suggested on another thread that the North End's population could probably be doubled or tripled without tearing down a single old house--the 20th century did an efficient job of that already, in the process creating a lot of gaps in the urban fabric ripe for refilling.)

In any case, a lot of city centres are less populated today than at their historical peak. Manhattan is the classic example: In 1910, there were over 2.3 million people on the island. Today, even with a bursting skyline, and a booming economy, there are just 1.6 million.

As far as the lack of mi-rise and high-rise in 1960s Halifax, there's actually compelling evidence that when cities grow beyond six or so storeys, they lose density, as per this table looking at the population densities of neighbourhoods in Berlin.



This is both because extremely tall buildings tend to have larger footprints and more space in between, and also because ever-widening elevator shafts eat up dwelling room. Similar results have been found in other cities on other continents. About a six to eight storey height, built uniformly over an urban area, is ideal for density. Of course, with a lower established vernacular, Canadian cities, including Halifax, have missed that boat, so towers are useful to compensate--but towers don't necessarily always equal high density, and an entirely low-rise Halifax could easily have been more dense than today's.

Fenwick is also right that family sizes in Canada are a lot smaller than in the past, meaning that there are a lot fewer people per household than in the past. I did a study a few years ago looking at census tracts in Toronto's central west end--the wealthiest tracts actually lost population between 2001 and 2006, and again between 2006 and 2011, as homeowners bought houses that had been converted years ago into small apartment buildings, and re-converted back them into single-family dwellings.
I also find the population numbers easy to believe, and I actually agree you could "double" the North End population easily, but we'd have to accept a lot more 7-8 storey developments around small/lower single unit residential. It's quite clear we're not ready to accept that change in Halifax.

I think Fenwick's data is probable right-- in the 1960's, yes, you had high levels of density in this single unit homes and, of course, in some of the squalor in parts of the city, where big families crammed in small spaces, out of necessity. But people don't have big families like that anymore. Most families today essentially sustain, but do not grow, the population.

So, today, all those low rise single unit homes in Halifax have become density killers; seniors or empty nester Boomers inhabiting big homes, with no kids left. Those Boomers are slowly moving to condos in the city, but it's a slow development.

But fertility rates aren't the only cause. In the late 1960s and 1970s, began the "white flight" to the suburbs, which apparently was facilitated by the MacDonald bridge. Development planned for, and focused on, the automobile, with the MacDonald, Cogswell, and other major arteries being built or proposed. Luckily, these were canned. But the sprawl growth continued for four decades, and is still going strong, with not stop or disincentive in sight.

Since much of the peninsula are these low-rise, low density single-unit homes, we need to compensate with greater levels of intense density and high rise development elsewhere. We're not doing that. Every proposal is a war.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 3:42 AM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,102
I'm not really that surprised. In 1961 people were still living in Africville and the areas now covered by Scotia Square and Cogswell. The parking lots along Gottingen and Queen would largely have been housing as well. Square footage per person was probably much lower than it is now and conditions were probably quite cramped. Most of the apartment units that have gone up since then, even in the 60s, are probably fairly spacious compared to what was available on the Peninsula pre-60s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:16 AM
Dmajackson's Avatar
Dmajackson Dmajackson is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: B3K Halifax, NS
Posts: 8,147
The 29'000 person decline is a mix of fertility, moving, low income, and an older type of mentality. The best way to describe this is with my family.

My father and his siblings were born in the 1950's at the peak of the Peninsula population. My grandparents and the four children lived in a 2-storey (+ basement) typical house in South-End Halifax. As the kids grew up each moved to the suburbs (or out of town) dropping the household from 6 to 2 people. My grandmother held onto the house even after my granddad passed away and she was the only one living there for about a decade. This is the story of a lot households in the South-End. Depression-era people commonly came from poverty and spent their lives saving money by keeping the same house and putting two or more kids to a room.
__________________
Halifax Developments Blog

- DJ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 12:58 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post

So, today, all those low rise single unit homes in Halifax have become density killers; seniors or empty nester Boomers inhabiting big homes, with no kids left. Those Boomers are slowly moving to condos in the city, but it's a slow development.

...


Since much of the peninsula are these low-rise, low density single-unit homes, we need to compensate with greater levels of intense density and high rise development elsewhere. We're not doing that. Every proposal is a war.
These are both good points, and I agree (though I definitely think a lot can be accomplished with mid-rise intensification on our under-built streets).

One cheering sign is that since neighbourhoods are cyclical (in terms of old neighbourhoods vs. young neighbourhoods) I think we're starting to see places like the North End and inner Dartmouth again becoming more youthful. The sheer number of strollers I see on the streets and babies I see in restaurants/cafes seem to suggest that a lot the old houses being bought and renovated by young people are once again home to growing families, which is great to see. So maybe the density per house is again on the rise.

But yeah, much of the 1960s peninsular density (like the 1910s Manhattan density) was due to OVERcrowded houses in the slums.

So we need intensification and taller buildings as well, but that should go without saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:10 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanaxanax View Post
what term would you use. I thought it seemed applicable
I'm not sure. Depends on the desired effect.

If you wanted to insult a person, while sounding like you're in an old gumshoe movie, Patsy might be perfectly serviceable (Though it does bring to mind visions of Patsy and Edwina, from Absolutely Fabulous). Other names to call him might have been jerkface, progress-hating-grinch, or meanie.

If you wanted to focus on the substance of your argument instead (which has some merit), I'm not sure if you needed a "term."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:12 PM
eastcoastal eastcoastal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by counterfactual View Post
Patsy is awesome. It's like 1920's Chicago gangster slang.
Or, the name of a binge-drinking druggie character with a fashion-obsessed frumpy scared-of-aging best friend from a British comedy series called Absolutely Fabulous with a rabid gay fan base... something similar to that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:31 PM
OldDartmouthMark OldDartmouthMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,841
Interesting discussion. I've been enjoying the information posted by all in this thread.

So is there a trend among the younger generation to aspire to live in an apartment?

I gather from my readings that part of the "problem" is that older residents who worked hard to buy a home in which to raise their families are continuing to live in their homes, but "hopefully" more of these homes will be torn down as the owners die off or move to condos, so that more apartment buildings/condos can be built to house the young urbanites in the future.

If this is the case, it's an interesting development, as up to now I think the previous generations (in general) lived in apartments when they had to in order to "get by" but hoped someday to own a home of their own to have a little piece of property that they could live in, maintain and beautify, have a place for their kids play outside in the yard, etc etc.

I know in my parents' generation, often families would have 10 or more children (likely due to cultural or religious reasons, combined with the lack of reliable birth control) all living in the same house (sometimes with other relatives as well), didn't have a car, etc, and thus lived most of their lives in a small radius, never traveling or leaving their community unless they had to, in which case they would use the bus, trolley, or train. Often their living situation was defined by income - people worked hard for minimal wages and luxury items like cars were out of reach for many households. They weren't necessarily living in slums or squalor either, just well-kept little homes in busy neighborhoods where people had a sense of community and looked out for one another. As an aside, I don't see that same sense of community being able to exist in a bunch of tall shiny apartment/condo buildings, but then maybe that's no longer a requirement for a society that is linked more by technology than geography.

The "boomer" generation had the luxury of a better economy and thus more plentiful, better-paying jobs, and cheaper, more easily attained luxury items such as cars, TVs, houses, etc. Birth control and changing attitudes brought birth rates down, thus allowing people choices that the previous generations would not have dreamed of.

So is this actually a trend among the masses in all of Canada (and the rest of the developed nations), or just the wishes of a small group of skyscraper/urban planning enthusiasts on websites such as this? I do get the sense that in general the younger generations have rebelled against the conspicuous consumptions of the previous generations and want to have less impact on their planet through waste, etc, and also that it is becoming harder for the younger generations to purchase homes of their own due to unstable job prospects and increasing costs.

A very complex issue, but I'd be interested in reading the opinions of others here.

If this is too far off topic, please disregard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:15 PM
Hali87 Hali87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,102
I thought a "patsy" was like a fall guy or scapegoat.

Based on personal experience, in Halifax specifically, most 20-somethings are looking to rent because A: they don't necessarily want to commit to living in the same house/unit "long-term", B: many are looking to spend as little as possible on housing while still being close to everything and C: the idea of a mortgage just doesn't really occur to them. Most that I know in Halifax would probably choose a flat in a house over a unit in a highrise, all things being equal, but generally it comes down to whatever is available within their desired location and price range. Most 20-somethings I know who are remotely considering buying property are in long-term relationships, and some have kids.

I think there's a small segment of the population that would like to live in a highrise just for its own sake, but I think most are just looking for whatever is convenient and affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:15 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post

So is this actually a trend among the masses in all of Canada (and the rest of the developed nations), or just the wishes of a small group of skyscraper/urban planning enthusiasts on websites such as this? I do get the sense that in general the younger generations have rebelled against the conspicuous consumptions of the previous generations and want to have less impact on their planet through waste, etc, and also that it is becoming harder for the younger generations to purchase homes of their own due to unstable job prospects and increasing costs.
No, I think a house is still the holy grail in Canada, even for the young. It's one of the reasons I moved here--I can see myself affording a centrally located house in Halifax, whereas in Toronto it was totally impossible.

This is why the price point and desirability of historical vernacular housing in old, central neighbourhoods is through the roof in just about any city you can name. The old people are indeed dying off or moving to retirement facilities/condos, but there aren't a bunch of developers waiting to mow down their houses and put up towers--there are, instead, throngs of younger and middle-aged people willing to pay a considerable amount of money to put down roots in those same houses.

That's why every time I walk down a North End street I see yet another house being given new cedar shingles, restored trim and finishings, and a fresh paint job, in addition to more substantive structural renos. People WANT those houses.

I think infill and intensification will, for the most part, replace only the shabbiest of those houses, or other under-used lots and low-intensity industrial purposes, no longer suitable or profitable now that inner neighbourhoods are gentrifying. I look forward to that mix, really.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:18 PM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hali87 View Post
I'm not really that surprised. In 1961 people were still living in Africville and the areas now covered by Scotia Square and Cogswell. The parking lots along Gottingen and Queen would largely have been housing as well. Square footage per person was probably much lower than it is now and conditions were probably quite cramped. Most of the apartment units that have gone up since then, even in the 60s, are probably fairly spacious compared to what was available on the Peninsula pre-60s.
Let's take the example of Park Victoria that didn't exist in 1961. If you look at the google maps shot you can see the block it occupies is similar to the Schmidtville block to the east. If the Schmidtville block had a peak of 3.5 res per household x approx. 20 households that is 70 residents. Enter Park Vic with ~500 residents. You would need 6.14 identical blocks of houses to compensate for that many people. This includes the block that Park Vic displaced. Also, there appears to be enough room for two Park Vics on that block if you really wanted density. There have been dozens and dozens of large apartment buildings built in Halifax since 1961.

Areas like Kempt. Rd were not heavily populated with single family homes. There were an abundance of space consuming factories. The prefabs in the west end were built for workers of these factories and were very, very small. The population of Africville peaked at 400 in 1917. Scotia Square didn't send thousands of people fleeing the peninsula and there weren't large residential buildings converted to office or some sort of commercial use as in New York.

I would guess that there are thousands of people unaccounted for today in illegal apartments that didn't exist in 1961. To say that there are 30,000 less people living on the peninsula today then 1961 I think is a huge stretch.

Park Victoria Halifax:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.64056.../data=!3m1!1e3
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 10:50 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,185
Empire writes " I would guess that there are thousands of people unaccounted for today in illegal apartments that didn't exist in 1961. To say that there are 30,000 less people living on the peninsula today then 1961 I think is a huge stretch. "

I assembled the population data 12 months ago. I used the Canada Yearbook for many of the earlier years and then used the census data. I have the census data for each of the 18 tracts within peninsula Halifax. I ended up in the Killam library to get the data for the census that are not available online. I also checked the Halifax directory to see how the population changed but did not use that data. When I had all the data I made graphs and then aligned the data with the councillor districts and sent the information to Watts and Mason. The staff involved with RP+5 are aware of the population data but you will not find the information in their documents.
At amalgamation in 1995 the Halifax population was 112-115,000 and that included Rockingham, Clayton Park, Spryfield etc.
If I can use two words to describe the decline in the population I will say : 'The Pill'.
Young couples who want a family will not buy condos, they prefer a single family dwelling (SFD ) or a townhouse. Take note of where new schools have been built - Bedford or out in the former Halifax County; and note where schools have been closed - Dartmouth and peninsula Halifax.
On my street a SFD will sell in a day or within 7 days but outside of the core the market has been dead for almost 12 months. Condo sales died almost 12 months ago.
I estimate that the turnover/lifecycle of a neighbourhood from family to new family is approx 30 years but RP+5 does not have any commentary on this issue and has no plan to lure families back to the centre. Families spend more money in the local economy than retirees but again RP+5 is blank on this issue.
In a seperate post I will explain why I think RP+5 will fail. Here is a hint - count the number of councillors who represent the urban core.

Last edited by Colin May; Mar 28, 2014 at 11:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 10:59 PM
Colin May Colin May is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,185
Link to the map of Halifax CMA Census tracts : http://geodepot.statcan.gc.ca/2006/1...05-02-0902.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 3:23 AM
Empire's Avatar
Empire Empire is offline
Salty Town
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin May View Post
Empire writes " I would guess that there are thousands of people unaccounted for today in illegal apartments that didn't exist in 1961. To say that there are 30,000 less people living on the peninsula today then 1961 I think is a huge stretch. "

I assembled the population data 12 months ago. I used the Canada Yearbook for many of the earlier years and then used the census data. I have the census data for each of the 18 tracts within peninsula Halifax. I ended up in the Killam library to get the data for the census that are not available online. I also checked the Halifax directory to see how the population changed but did not use that data. When I had all the data I made graphs and then aligned the data with the councillor districts and sent the information to Watts and Mason. The staff involved with RP+5 are aware of the population data but you will not find the information in their documents.
At amalgamation in 1995 the Halifax population was 112-115,000 and that included Rockingham, Clayton Park, Spryfield etc.
If I can use two words to describe the decline in the population I will say : 'The Pill'.
Young couples who want a family will not buy condos, they prefer a single family dwelling (SFD ) or a townhouse. Take note of where new schools have been built - Bedford or out in the former Halifax County; and note where schools have been closed - Dartmouth and peninsula Halifax.
On my street a SFD will sell in a day or within 7 days but outside of the core the market has been dead for almost 12 months. Condo sales died almost 12 months ago.
I estimate that the turnover/lifecycle of a neighbourhood from family to new family is approx 30 years but RP+5 does not have any commentary on this issue and has no plan to lure families back to the centre. Families spend more money in the local economy than retirees but again RP+5 is blank on this issue.
In a seperate post I will explain why I think RP+5 will fail. Here is a hint - count the number of councillors who represent the urban core.
How many single family dwellings are there on the peninsula including duplexes and townhouses?

How many students have been lost due to school closures on the peninsula since 1961?
__________________
Salty Town
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 1:10 PM
worldlyhaligonian worldlyhaligonian is offline
we built this city
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16 View Post
Here are a few images taken from the pdf file - http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...ionPackage.pdf

It looks like a decent project and it doesn't look out of place next to the other mid-rise towers.


Regardless of the point of views being discussed recently... there is a ton of peninsular land in this area that isn't being used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 2:24 PM
fenwick16 fenwick16 is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto area (ex-Nova Scotian)
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark View Post
.
.
.
The "boomer" generation had the luxury of a better economy and thus more plentiful, better-paying jobs, and cheaper, more easily attained luxury items such as cars, TVs, houses, etc. Birth control and changing attitudes brought birth rates down, thus allowing people choices that the previous generations would not have dreamed of.

So is this actually a trend among the masses in all of Canada (and the rest of the developed nations), or just the wishes of a small group of skyscraper/urban planning enthusiasts on websites such as this? I do get the sense that in general the younger generations have rebelled against the conspicuous consumptions of the previous generations and want to have less impact on their planet through waste, etc, and also that it is becoming harder for the younger generations to purchase homes of their own due to unstable job prospects and increasing costs.

A very complex issue, but I'd be interested in reading the opinions of others here.

If this is too far off topic, please disregard.
The following excerpt from this link - http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=35 - gives a good explanation of the current population growth trends in Canada and the rest of the developed world. I think it loosely applies to this thread. The peninsula will need many more dwellings in order to recover its past population because of smaller family sizes.

Quote:
.
.
.
...Over the past 50 years, the total fertility rate has dropped significantly in Canada. From a high of 3.93 children per woman in 1959, the TFR underwent a sharp decline in the 1960s and then continued to drop until it reached a historic low of 1.49 children per woman in 2000. After that, the rate increased to reach 1.6 children per woman in 2011. The highest TFR value seen in Canada in 2011 was recorded in Nunavut (3.0). In contrast, British Columbia, in 2011, had the lowest value, namely 1.4 children per woman.

The replacement fertility rate, or average number of children that the women of one generation would need to have to result - solely through natural increase - in a generation of the same size, is estimated at 2.1 children per woman for developed countries like Canada. However, it should be noted that very few developed countries reach this level, as indicated by the fact that in 2010, no G8 member had a total fertility rate reaching the replacement rate.
Most of the world population growth is occurring in "less developed regions" as discussed in this UN document - http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...p2300final.pdf. In my opinion, it won't be sustainable in the less developed regions because it will be self-regulated by lack of food and starvation (such as what occurred in China before leaders introduced the one-child policy).

Last edited by fenwick16; Mar 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Halifax Peninsula & Downtown Dartmouth
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.