HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


View Poll Results: Winnipeg's (CMA) Population in 5 Years Will Be.....
740,000 or less 40 23.39%
740,000-750,000 26 15.20%
750,000-760,000 24 14.04%
760,000 or more 81 47.37%
Voters: 171. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 4:47 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayward_prince View Post
what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.
^ and what exactly do you base YOUR claim on?
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 5:04 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
Population growth isn't necessarily something that is a good reflection on the city.

Population growth and the birth rate is most notable in poverty situations. An example being the birth rate per women in the developing world versus the developed world.

If I can recall correctly, this correlation is also noticeable in Manitoba, where Aboriginal women (a substantial amount in poverty and/or with addictions problems) have 3.5 children on average, versus something like 1.2 per non-Aboriginal woman.

Myself, I'd be just as interested to see some numbers on how the new Winnipeggers got here (amount of immigrants, inter-provincial migration, new births broken out by socio-economic factors, etc)
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 5:26 PM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is offline
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 24,644
true

but does this mean we are 7th now?
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 8:02 PM
ILYR's Avatar
ILYR ILYR is offline
ILYR
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayward_prince View Post
what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.
I had posted these plots some time ago in another thread. The are for Manitoba, but Winnipeg and Manitoba population growth go hand in hand. The number are for total growth, so that includes births, deaths, immigration, inter-provincial migration. Based on the plots below Winnipeg and Manitoba are seeing increased growth compared with then last 30 years. I believe that for many those "greener pastures" are, in fact, in Winnipeg and Manitoba.

     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 8:13 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 6,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownWpg View Post
Population growth isn't necessarily something that is a good reflection on the city
Winnipeg loses population. Winnipeg sucks.

Winnipeg's population growth is stagnant. Winnipeg sucks.

and now

Winnipeg gains population. Winnipeg sucks.

To be quite honest, with citizens like this running around Winnipeg, it's a wonder why anyone would move here. And these kinds of attitudes certainly aren't helping to retain any immigrants either.
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 8:17 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
Winnipeg loses population. Winnipeg sucks.

Winnipeg's population growth is stagnant. Winnipeg sucks.

and now

Winnipeg gains population. Winnipeg sucks.

To be quite honest, with citizens like this running around Winnipeg, it's a wonder why anyone would move here. And these kinds of attitudes certainly aren't helping to retain any immigrants either.
While I know how popular it is to decry 'the naysayers' on this board, your out-of-context interpretation of only the first line of my post isn't the point I was trying to make.

If I may:
- it would be interesting to see a detailed statistical break-out of where the new Winnipeggers are coming from.
- there is a correlation between birth rates and poverty. To expand, we need to address poverty issues (all levels of gov) or most likely our problems are only going to increase at the same rate as those born into poverty.

It is important to understand this stuff, at the very least for public policy reasons.

Last edited by DowntownWpg; Jun 17, 2009 at 9:44 PM.
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 9:03 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration....the sponsorhip programme brings in 12 000 people to the province each year....80% to winnipeg.

the fact that we no longer lose people through migration to other provinces means that we grow by basically that amount.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 9:11 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayward_prince View Post
what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.
err...where you been?...winnipeg has grown by that amount for the last 5 years and has averaged 5000 for the last 10....your hypothesis that immigrants leave in 6 months is completely false....look at the statistics and compare immigration to population growth numbers and you will see that you are formulating your opinion on myth and not fact.

the immigrant sponsorship programme pretty much guarantees that we will continue to grow at at least that pace....moe likely it will be at a greater pace.
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 9:13 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration....the sponsorhip programme brings in 12 000 people to the province each year....80% to winnipeg.

the fact that we no longer lose people through migration to other provinces means that we grow by basically that amount.
That is certainly good to hear. I have to ask, because I am interested in these type of stats, where did you find that data?

Also, I stand corrected, the Aboriginal birth rate is closer to 2/women now (still much higher than non-Aboriginals)

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/m...boriginals.pdf
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 9:19 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
today's free press.

google the sponsorship progrramme...you'll easily find the numbers over the last 5 years.
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 9:25 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511

Cool, just found it, thanks.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2009, 10:56 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is online now
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,455
Most immigrants stay in Manitoba. They was an story about it on the National a year or two ago.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 1:50 PM
Keng Keng is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayward_prince View Post
what exactly do you base the 8,000 on..and for how long do you think it's been growing by that rate..how many years? and don't factor in new immigrants because of the several thousand who arrive here, almost half leave for greener pastures within six months.

I think Winnipeg qualifies as greener pastures. That's an old argument.
__________________
Ken

Photo Gallery: kengillespie.com
My Photo Blog
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 3:35 PM
Boreal's Avatar
Boreal Boreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,592
I understand the concept behind the lines drawn on a map in terms of determining a CMA, and I can certainly come to terms with Selkirk not being counted (although, on a personal level, I do consider it part of the CMA) but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the St. Andrews exclusion. Perhaps it is more self sufficient than I thought, but based on nothing more than hearsay, almost everyone I know who resides or has resided in that neck of the woods both works and plays in Winnipeg the vast majority of the time. I suppose this is just nitpicking, and ultimately it doesn't matter what Stats Can really defines as our CMA, as it is in some regards arbitrary.
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 5:53 PM
SmileyBoy's Avatar
SmileyBoy SmileyBoy is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Minneapolis, Fargo
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreal View Post
I understand the concept behind the lines drawn on a map in terms of determining a CMA, and I can certainly come to terms with Selkirk not being counted (although, on a personal level, I do consider it part of the CMA) but I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the St. Andrews exclusion. Perhaps it is more self sufficient than I thought, but based on nothing more than hearsay, almost everyone I know who resides or has resided in that neck of the woods both works and plays in Winnipeg the vast majority of the time. I suppose this is just nitpicking, and ultimately it doesn't matter what Stats Can really defines as our CMA, as it is in some regards arbitrary.
At least in Canada, you have better definitions of metro areas than we do in the US. Down here, a metro area is stirctly defined by county boundaries. (e.g. Grand Forks' metro area is "defined" as around 102,000 even though probably 20,000 of those people live in far eastern Polk County and don't commute to GF.) No matter how weird or oblong a county's shape is, it's still included in a metro area, regardless of if people in the fringes of that county usually have nothing to do with the central city in their daily lives. We're lucky in Fargo that the counties that define our 2-county metro are basically geometric squares that spread out equidistantly from the city centre. 4-county metro is a little more complicated, because a lot of people in Wahpeton/Breckenridge commute to and from F-M.
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 6:07 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
I have a Stats Can paper printed at home, came out a few months ago. Forget the title, so I had trouble finding it via Google, but will try to link to it later today.

In summary, StatsCan takes in a variety of factors in defining their CMA. Notable for this conversation is that density is a major consideration.

Hence, for Winnipeg's CMA, places like St. Andrews and beyond are not included.

IMO, when you're driving out of Winnipeg, a bit past the Perimeter Highway, and you've got farm fields on either side of the highway... guess what!?! you're no longer in Winnipeg's metropolitan area!

I know some people disagree with this, because they want the Winnipeg population to appear bigger than it is. But, that is just the way it is. If you really want to make the city appear more populace than it is, you can sneakily refer to the Capital Region.

As for StatsCan data sets, if you are conducting your own study there is no reason why you cannot define your own versions of CMAs, Urban-Rural, etc. SPSS is your friend.

IMO, inside the red line is what is (roughly) reasonable to consider as Winnipeg's metro population:

     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 6:25 PM
Only The Lonely..'s Avatar
Only The Lonely.. Only The Lonely.. is offline
Portage & Main 50 below
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownWpg View Post
In summary, StatsCan takes in a variety of factors in defining their CMA. Notable for this conversation is that density is a major consideration.

Hence, for Winnipeg's CMA, places like St. Andrews and beyond are not included.

IMO, when you're driving out of Winnipeg, a bit past the Perimeter Highway, and you've got farm fields on either side of the highway... guess what!?! you're no longer in Winnipeg's metropolitan area!

I don't agree with the notion that a metropolitan region must be continuous in its built form in order for the population of neighbouring areas to count.

Consider as an example the city of Ottawa, which has a green belt surrounding Ottawa proper.

Despite having to drive through the country ("green belt") to get there, would you not consider Kanata and Nepean Ontario to be part of metropolitan Ottawa?

I know I would, and I’m sure StatsCan does too.

I think StatsCan has defined the correct criteria for belonging to a CMA; and that is 50% of a community's workforce must be employed in the metropolitan centre for it to be considered part of a larger urban region.

Thus, East St.Paul would belong to Winnipeg's CMA but Selkirk would not..
__________________
WINNIPEG: Home of Canada's first skyscraper!
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 6:59 PM
Pootkao's Avatar
Pootkao Pootkao is offline
I Like It When You Hit Me
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Montreal & Winnipeg
Posts: 4,387
I bid 1 dollar, Bob.
__________________
The mayor's out killing kids to keep taxes down.
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2009, 7:41 PM
DowntownWpg's Avatar
DowntownWpg DowntownWpg is offline
The Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Only The Lonely.. View Post
I don't agree with the notion that a metropolitan region must be continuous in its built form in order for the population of neighbouring areas to count.

Consider as an example the city of Ottawa, which has a green belt surrounding Ottawa proper.

Despite having to drive through the country ("green belt") to get there, would you not consider Kanata and Nepean Ontario to be part of metropolitan Ottawa?

I know I would, and I’m sure StatsCan does too.

I think StatsCan has defined the correct criteria for belonging to a CMA; and that is 50% of a community's workforce must be employed in the metropolitan centre for it to be considered part of a larger urban region.

Thus, East St.Paul would belong to Winnipeg's CMA but Selkirk would not..
I'm no Ottawa expert, so am not that sure as to if I would consider, personally, Kanata and Nepean in the Ottawa CMA.

However, I think that the criteria you indicated re: 50% workforce, is related to the Capital Region formula. CMA is more population density based, IIRC.
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2009, 4:53 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 40,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
not to parade on your rain, but winnipeg's population growth is almost exclusively through immigration
Winnipeg might have something similar to Thunder Bay, where the population is stagnant but the demographics are changing. The non-aboriginal population decline by 1%, but was more than offset by a 25% growth in the aboriginal population. And while the average white person is 45, the average native is 25.

Looking at immigrants and non-immigrants you probably won't notice that, but if you take a look at population change among the aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations you might see something similar. Virtually all of Thunder Bay's non-aboriginal population gains are from immigrants.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:20 AM.

     

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