How do you think a Canada of 50 million people by 2050 will be?

[SignalHillHiker]

It'll be more or less the same with increased suburbia around the cities and more residential towers within. A lot more Markham and Mount Pearl, certainly no new London or Paris.

As for us, Canada at 50 million makes no difference. St. John's will certainly be larger, but the province's overall population could be lower. We're not really linked to Canadian growth in that regard.

[MonctonRad]

In a Canada of 50M by 2050, at least as far as the Maritimes are concerned:

NS - 1,200,000 people
NB - 900,000 people
PE - 200,000 people

Halifax - 625,000
Moncton - 225,000
Saint John - 140,000
Fredericton - 140,000
Charlottetown - 110,000
Sydney - 90,000

The idea of a central Martime growth corridor Including Halifax, the northern Annapolis Valley, the south shore as far as Bridgewater, Truro, Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John and central PEI is firmly established. The rest of the region (save for the upper Saint John River valley, and northern NS as far as Antigonish) gradually declines. Halifax is the main population centre, and the cultural and economic heartland of the region. Moncton is the logistics capital. Saint John retains its industrial base and Fredericton continues to grow rapidly based on its educational and high tech base.

Regional transportation becomes more sophisticated, and centred on the logistics hub of Moncton. Several times daily rail service is reestablished between the main Maritime centres, and commuter rail to Halifax is firmly established, branching out to Truro and Kentville. The 102 between Halifax and Truro is now six lane, as is also the TCH around Moncton. Highway 7 between Fredericton and Saint John is fully twinned. Highway 11 north from Moncton to Bouctouche is also finally twinned completely. Halifax Stanfield International Airport develops increased connectivity to the US and to Europe. Romeo LeBlanc International Airport in Moncton substantially increased air freight capabilities, and finally gets direct flights to St. John's and Calgary, as well as year round connections to Boston and New York. In western NB, there is a gradual consolidation of services based out of the Fredericton International Airport, and this airport becomes the main rival for Romeo LeBlanc. The Saint John Airport gradually becomes less and less relevant.

[KnoxfordGuy]

I would love if the Saint John-Fredericton highway was a four lane. The traffic stresses me out sometimes. Having an 18 wheeler coming at you at 110km (limit 100) is freaky.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It bears mentioning that adding millions more people our big cities doesn't necessarily equate to higher real estate prices. Land use policies, supply of housing, etc. factor in heavily. Look at Tokyo. They hav 35 million+ in one metro yet their real estate prices are much lower then one sees even in Montreal.

I think the big difference is growth. Tokyo has been in the ~35 million range for years now. At this point it's pretty stable and has been built out to be a city of that size - there's a whole lot of supply, and demand is flat.

The particular challenge that high-growth cities face is that they're always playing catch up. Whether in the housing market or where infrastructure is concerned, whatever exists is inherently insufficient.

Of course, regulatory rules still play a big role in influencing cost, but ultimately take a backseat to basic supply & demand. In any case, Tokyo's low(ish) cost of living is a bit of an outlier among global megacities.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

That's basically what's been happening over the last couple decades. Partly due to Halifax becoming a better place to live and partly due to economic changes in the ROC, a lot more people are moving (and staying) here. Of course we'll never compete with Toronto or Montreal in terms of big-city experience or career opportunities but we're sort of the Winnipeg of this part of Canada despite being smaller. I'm not sure on the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if we draw more residents from the ROC (outside of province) than Hamilton, QC or Winnipeg.

Halifax definitely has a more metropolitan feel than you'd imagine by taking Winnipeg or Hamilton and scaling them down by 50% or so. It will not be a major world city in the foreseeable future (and I don't think that could happen in a reasonable time period without destroying most of the good stuff since it's so small right now) but it has lost that residual small town feel it had even in 2005.

Since Halifax is growing faster now it's running into the same problems as Toronto or Vancouver. Lots of population growth but major infrastructure dates to many decades ago and there isn't a clear path forward. There probably won't be any dramatic surprises 5-10 years from now, it'll just be approximately the transport network of today with some tweaks. One benefit Halifax has though is that it has a disproportionately large walkable Victorian or earlier core that's easy to add infill to. The metro area could grow by 20% or so just with infill, and this isn't far off what's happening right now. Many North American cities don't have this option. They are building what infill they can but they either don't have much desirable space left or had nothing to begin with. Postwar suburbia and even streetcar suburbs are not as easy to expand in this way.

Another little angle people don't mention much is that Halifax has the potential to become a bit of a party city in North America, like New Orleans. It already has some of that feel. I am not sure the municipal government and province would ever do this but if they loosened up public drinking along Argyle it would already be a fun spot. There could be an entertainment district stretching from there to Gottingen.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Interesting and thoughtful post. My thoughts to your points:

Originally Posted by wave46

How do I think Canada will be in 2050, whatever its population? Worse, to be honest. Much worse, if we don't play our cards right.

Which is really depressing and where I hope I'm wrong.

But, there's a 'unhealthy' vibe to the economic growth last decade in several senses. It's not unlike the difference between eating a bag of potato chips for dinner and a well rounded meal for dinner. Yeah, both leave you full, but you feel much better after the latter instead of the former.

My concerns (in no particular order)

1. A continued trend towards deindustrialization and an over-reliance on housing price growth to make us feel wealthy. We don't make things here anymore competitively, we buy them using our exported unprocessed raw materials. Which is finite. The housing price growth isn't sustainable either - I don't see how prices can go up 5%+ per year forever. We're just bleeding the younger generation in a most insidious fashion by saddling them with huge debts.

Agreed. I've been concerned about this for a couple of decades as I've watched corporations shut down their Canada/US manufacturing facilities in favour of cheap/unregulated factories overseas. While there is a short-term benefit of increased profit going to the head offices of these companies, and cheap material goods for the rest of us, the countries suffer with loss of employment and loss of industrial capability.

Also, housing should just be that - an affordable place to live and not a way to 'boost' our economy. I look at housing price growth as a negative, not a positive.

2. Governments that can't stop deficit spending while the biggest liabilities (i.e. our aging population) swell. Healthcare and low taxes are great, but it's just an endless maw of cash. Which is great for the 90-year old who gets all the best care, but not exactly sustainable in the long-term. I don't know how we culturally have a conversation about death, but I fear that the Boomers' fear of death and disdain for being taxed will bleed the country dry.

While I agree that our government needs to be more careful about deficit spending, if I am interpreting your comments about Boomers/seniors/lifespan correctly, it is a little disturbing to me. What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that younger generations don't fear death? Are you suggesting that only 'Boomers' want lower taxes? Do you not want healthcare for everybody? Do you not think that older generations who have worked hard all of their lives deserve to have dignity in their senior years? Sorry, but it just sounds like it's leaning towards the typical 'Boomer' bashing that appears to be popular today... correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope I am).

Another point I want to make is the proverbial '90-year-old who gets all the best care'. I can say from personal experience of helping the elderly that they do not receive the 'best care'. Especially those who do not have a younger person to advocate for them. Most times they receive the minimum of care to keep them alive, but that's it... and sometimes they don't even get that much. Oftentimes they will be turned away from emergency care as it appears to be felt among the medical community that they do not deserve the care since they are near the end of their lifespan. I often think how easy it is for people to make decisions like that when they don't have any personal investment, but be sure that when it is you or someone you care for, you will not have the same opinion.

3. A shift in power to nations that don't even really have the pretense of wanting to be about human rights. If you think China is pushy now, wait until its economy doubles in size again. The current leader of the world faces many of the same problems we do here and seems to be even more disinclined to address them. The little spats we have with China now are more likely to hurt much more as they grow stronger and the US becomes more inwardly focused.

I agree that it's a concern, which also reflects on my comments to point (1).

4. A lack of leadership. The leadership of 2020 hasn't exactly inspired me, especially in the English-speaking world. Leadership sometimes means making the hard choices - short-term pain for long-term gain. But we get Trump, BoJo and Mr. Blackface. It's hard to evoke Churchill, Kennedy, Pearson or Eisenhower in the current crop of 'leaders'. More like a squad of buffoons.

I agree that we appear to be suffering for actual leadership, but you have to be careful to not focus on the past too much through rose coloured glasses. Leaders of the past have been less than ideal and have made grave errors in judgement. What concerns me the most with the current crop of leaders is that they appear to be more autonomous these days, wanting to run countries like companies that adhere to their personal values and opinions. The decorum of respect and procedure seems to have gone out the window and we are left with justifications and denial (i.e. 'fake news').

I'm hoping that it will continue to be cyclical, as it has been in the past.

5. The other billions. In 2050, the world's population is projected to be 9.7 billion. We're having problems now and we're going to add a couple more billion people to this planet? It's trying to bring a family of 7 out of poverty and they're thinking of having another 3 kids.

This is my main concern and has been for a long time. We can do all we can to fight climate change, but hugely increasing the population is only going to create more strain on our resources and our environment. I don't really understand why our economies appear to be designed to only work if your population continues to increase.

That said, I don't see any practical way to stabilize population growth as there are so many religious/cultural/personal/political motivations behind this growth, and there doesn't appear to be any will to do anything about it.

I'm not at the point of losing faith yet, but my faith in the future of Canada (and the West) is being sorely tested these last few years. I feel we are making the politically expedient choices as opposed to the right ones. Which makes me start thinking about how mostly to protect myself while the world burns. I might just live long enough to end up being stuck with the bill for our poor decisions.

Which is really shitty. I've watched a few of JFK's speeches and almost am nostalgic (I'm not sure if it's nostalgia if I wasn't alive at the time) for the optimism of that era.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

My advice would be to try to take the positive outlook, though admittedly it has become more difficult to do so. If you look through history, political trends are usually cyclical, though unfortunately things have often gone off the rails before they are corrected - but there always seems to be a will to improve and rebuild when things go bad.

JFK's speeches came along at a particular point in history, and likely would have fallen on deaf ears in other eras. There has been some regression since those days, but there has also been progress as well - I think in JFK's days the idea of having an African-American president would not have even been considered. However now, since Obama has been replaced by Trump, I would consider the US (and much of the rest of the world) to be in the midst of another regression, but am hoping the world will bounce back again... but likely not before much more pain and angst is experienced.

Please note that the above are only my opinions... feel free to disagree as I always welcome constructive conversation.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting and thoughtful post. My thoughts to your points:
While I agree that our government needs to be more careful about deficit spending, if I am interpreting your comments about Boomers/seniors/lifespan correctly, it is a little disturbing to me. What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that younger generations don't fear death? Are you suggesting that only 'Boomers' want lower taxes? Do you not want healthcare for everybody? Do you not think that older generations who have worked hard all of their lives deserve to have dignity in their senior years? Sorry, but it just sounds like it's leaning towards the typical 'Boomer' bashing that appears to be popular today... correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope I am).

Another point I want to make is the proverbial '90-year-old who gets all the best care'. I can say from personal experience of helping the elderly that they do not receive the 'best care'. Especially those who do not have a younger person to advocate for them. Most times they receive the minimum of care to keep them alive, but that's it... and sometimes they don't even get that much. Oftentimes they will be turned away from emergency care as it appears to be felt among the medical community that they do not deserve the care since they are near the end of their lifespan. I often think how easy it is for people to make decisions like that when they don't have any personal investment, but be sure that when it is you or someone you care for, you will not have the same opinion.

Upon re-reading, my post came off as much more pejorative to Boomers than I intended it to be.

The Boomers are just the lucky recipients of one of the first major cohorts to get modern medical care. It's not a slag against the group themselves (at least I don't intend it to be), but it's something we're not really discussing at a society-wide level. The irony of modern healthcare and living is that the increased lifespan has allowed us to succumb to degenerative diseases as opposed to acute ones.

I work in the medical field and I have an older relative taking a journey through that system and I guess my frustration is coming through. It's tragic because I don't think there's a fix for my older relative and for the system at large - at least not an easy one. I've seen clogged hospitals with patients who will never leave the facility - our politically correct term for them is 'alternate level of care patients' and I've seen wings of hospitals devoted to them - taken away from acute care patients.

The 'institutionalization' of death and dying has crippled out discourse on it. Previously, death was a very personal, nearby process in human society - there was no 'long-term care' facility to pawn off people into. Growing up in a farming community meant that death was always at hand - that steak in the grocery store didn't come packaged out of thin air. Now, death is basically removed from modern life, aside from a household pet.

I don't pretend there are easy answers. Death is a very hard subject and there's a lot of cultural baggage associated with it. My frustration with society is that we're directing our efforts poorly - "more money for hospitals!" being the rallying cry - but not tackling the root of the problem of being human (i.e. What is a good death?)

Wow, that was a morbid post.

My advice would be to try to take the positive outlook, though admittedly it has become more difficult to do so. If you look through history, political trends are usually cyclical, though unfortunately things have often gone off the rails before they are corrected - but there always seems to be a will to improve and rebuild when things go bad.

JFK's speeches came along at a particular point in history, and likely would have fallen on deaf ears in other eras. There has been some regression since those days, but there has also been progress as well - I think in JFK's days the idea of having an African-American president would not have even been considered. However now, since Obama has been replaced by Trump, I would consider the US (and much of the rest of the world) to be in the midst of another regression, but am hoping the world will bounce back again... but likely not before much more pain and angst is experienced.

Please note that the above are only my opinions... feel free to disagree as I always welcome constructive conversation.

I think I'm just in a more difficult position personally right now, and I'm struggling to find a positive narrative, hence it is reflected in my posts.

The idealism of youth has faded and I'm struggling to find the deeper meaning in life. I find that the empty calories of modern distraction (I don't care about Star Wars/next trendy tourist destination/what social media shit is going on now) aren't as fulfilling as they were previously and there's a longing for something more wholesome. Modern-era Canada is lacking a societal vision and refusing to talk about its problems - the cultural vacuum is suffocating. I will completely concede that I'm not a fixed point though - the world is how what I perceive it.

I appreciate your insightful reply. Thank you

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I think the big difference is growth. Tokyo has been in the ~35 million range for years now. At this point it's pretty stable and has been built out to be a city of that size - there's a whole lot of supply, and demand is flat.

The particular challenge that high-growth cities face is that they're always playing catch up. Whether in the housing market or where infrastructure is concerned, whatever exists is inherently insufficient.

Of course, regulatory rules still play a big role in influencing cost, but ultimately take a backseat to basic supply & demand. In any case, Tokyo's low(ish) cost of living is a bit of an outlier among global megacities.

Good points but one also has to acknowledge that Canadian cities grew at a faster clip in the 1950s yet we managed to build enough infrastructure while keeping a lid on prices.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Interesting and thoughtful post. My thoughts to your points:



Agreed. I've been concerned about this for a couple of decades as I've watched corporations shut down their Canada/US manufacturing facilities in favour of cheap/unregulated factories overseas. While there is a short-term benefit of increased profit going to the head offices of these companies, and cheap material goods for the rest of us, the countries suffer with loss of employment and loss of industrial capability.

I honestly think this narrative is more or less bullshit. Manufacturing didn't leave because it got underbid it got annihilated because it became too conservative.

There's too little respect in manufacturing for trend setters. This attitude doesn't exist in IT which explains why it is where all the growth is occurring.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by wave46

Upon re-reading, my post came off as much more pejorative to Boomers than I intended it to be.

The Boomers are just the lucky recipients of one of the first major cohorts to get modern medical care. It's not a slag against the group themselves (at least I don't intend it to be), but it's something we're not really discussing at a society-wide level. The irony of modern healthcare and living is that the increased lifespan has allowed us to succumb to degenerative diseases as opposed to acute ones.

I work in the medical field and I have an older relative taking a journey through that system and I guess my frustration is coming through. It's tragic because I don't think there's a fix for my older relative and for the system at large - at least not an easy one. I've seen clogged hospitals with patients who will never leave the facility - our politically correct term for them is 'alternate level of care patients' and I've seen wings of hospitals devoted to them - taken away from acute care patients.

The 'institutionalization' of death and dying has crippled out discourse on it. Previously, death was a very personal, nearby process in human society - there was no 'long-term care' facility to pawn off people into. Growing up in a farming community meant that death was always at hand - that steak in the grocery store didn't come packaged out of thin air. Now, death is basically removed from modern life, aside from a household pet.

I don't pretend there are easy answers. Death is a very hard subject and there's a lot of cultural baggage associated with it. My frustration with society is that we're directing our efforts poorly - "more money for hospitals!" being the rallying cry - but not tackling the root of the problem of being human (i.e. What is a good death?)

Wow, that was a morbid post.




I think I'm just in a more difficult position personally right now, and I'm struggling to find a positive narrative, hence it is reflected in my posts.

The idealism of youth has faded and I'm struggling to find the deeper meaning in life. I find that the empty calories of modern distraction (I don't care about Star Wars/next trendy tourist destination/what social media shit is going on now) aren't as fulfilling as they were previously and there's a longing for something more wholesome. Modern-era Canada is lacking a societal vision and refusing to talk about its problems - the cultural vacuum is suffocating. I will completely concede that I'm not a fixed point though - the world is how what I perceive it.

I appreciate your insightful reply. Thank you

Thanks for your explanation and your thoughts. I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate it.

One story that I often hear is of seniors who suffer a health crisis of some sort that requires a change of living conditions (e.g. move to a nursing home or similar facility). The hospital can't legally release them until they have a safe place to go home to. So the end result is a number of hospital beds being used as temporary nursing home care, and like you said, unavailable for use by actual hospital patients, until a nursing home bed is found for them (often by somebody in the nursing home dying).

It's a fact that our country is top-heavy with older people from the Boomer generation (and some older), and that this situation will be worse before its better. It's for this reason that I can't help but wonder if some new nursing home facilities could be built, and designed to be easily converted for another use (apartments? offices?) in the future, when there is no need for so many facilities? i.e. design them to be repurposed into something that will be needed later on. This would require some financial investment, but I'm thinking that some of that investment could be recovered through the repurposing in the future. Just an idea I had, I'm sure there are many faults with it.

I think a lot of people are going through, or have gone through, what you describe above. From the time we are born we are fed ideas of utopia through consumerism - just get *this* and you'll be happy... just do *that* and you'll be happy... Or just be addicted to your phone through mind-numbing social media that only exists for its profitability in mining your information... It seems great for awhile until you figure out that it's just superficial stuff, and the only real purpose was to get your money and keep the economy going. Real meaning is out there, but can't be bought, and isn't really integrated into our 'culture' - it almost happens in spite of it.

I admit to struggling with the same thoughts and frustrations, and sometimes am completely in awe at how over and over again, we humans continue to fuck it up - with wars, greed, environmental chaos, etc. etc. I wonder if we will ever learn, or will we in fact just end up like the dinosaurs - an unfamiliar species whose remains are discovered by other beings thousands of years from now...

OK, I'm starting to sound a little too morose, but yeah, I know what you're sayin'...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I honestly think this narrative is more or less bullshit. Manufacturing didn't leave because it got underbid it got annihilated because it became too conservative.

There's too little respect in manufacturing for trend setters. This attitude doesn't exist in IT which explains why it is where all the growth is occurring.

It doesn't completely describe the phenomenon, but isn't bullshit either. Costs are definitely a factor. You think those clothing factories Bangladesh exist because of their abilities as trend setters? I'm not sure the workers there would agree with you...

https://nypost.com/2019/10/25/amazon...igation-finds/

One $4.99 yellow gingham toddler top that The Journal discovered for sale on Amazon by a New York City retailer was traced to a factory in Chittagong, Bangladesh. That facility does not have any fire alarms and the doors can be locked by managers to keep workers inside.

A laborer at the factory, 18-year-old Nasreen Begum, said she spends 12-hour days there stitching shirts with 300 others. “You’re trapped inside until the time you complete the orders,” she told The Journal.

[urbandreamer]

^You know this happens in Canada. I can think of 3 sweatshops operating within 1km of CityPlace that operate on this piecework principle and 1 in rural Ontario.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

The Boomers are just the lucky recipients of one of the first major cohorts to get modern medical care. It's not a slag against the group themselves (at least I don't intend it to be), but it's something we're not really discussing at a society-wide level.

There's more to it than this.

Government services were expanded after WWII, partially using deficit financing, then we went through a period of comparative austerity in the 1990's and 2000's. This timeline had the effect of creating generational inequity in spending. One generation got more stuff and another generation is burdened with more of the bill.

We have the same thing going on with regional and municipal planning and infrastructure spending. This is what is making housing expensive, not construction costs. It's an artificial shortage of zoned and serviced land.

If you were born in the 1950's you profited from cheap education and health care when you were young, huge returns in the housing market, and falling tax rates during your peak earning years. If you were born in 1990 and didn't have somebody to pay your way chances are you're either a member of the underclass, working poor, or you financed your own expensive education and still might not be able to own your own place depending on where you are. You won't get a pension and you won't get 7% a year tax-free on your house. You'll pay higher taxes than boomers with 0 income and millions in wealth.

[urbandreamer]

The gov't and private industry knows best where growth will occur: Barrie, Hamilton, Oshawa and KW-C. That's why they're widening the 401, ramping up all day GO service. I know dozens of new Canadians who've moved to KW-C from the GTA.

2050s: Cambridge: 300k
Kitchener: 450k
Waterloo: 250k
Guelph: 300k
Brampton: 1 million
Mississauga: 1 million
Milton: 450k
Vaughan: 1 million
Barrie: 450k
Oshawa: 400k
Hamilton: 800k
London: 500k
Brantford: 200k
Woodstock: 55k
Ingersoll: 20k
Stratford: 45k

[saffronleaf]

In terms of professional sports teams, I'd like to see the following expansion teams by 2050. Not feeling too confident about it but we'll see.

CFL expansion teams:
- Quebec
- Halifax
- London
- Victoria
- Saskatoon

NHL expansion teams:
- Quebec

MLS expansion teams:
- Ottawa
- Calgary
- Edmonton

MLB expansion teams:
- Montreal
- Vancouver

NBA expansion teams:
- Vancouver
- Montreal

Each of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver would have teams in the CFL, NHL, MLS, MLB, NBA.

Each of Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton would have teams in the CFL, NHL, MLS.

Each of Quebec and Winnipeg would have teams in the CFL, NHL.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

The gov't and private industry knows best where growth will occur: Barrie, Hamilton, Oshawa and KW-C. That's why they're widening the 401, ramping up all day GO service. I know dozens of new Canadians who've moved to KW-C from the GTA.

2050s: Cambridge: 300k
Kitchener: 450k
Waterloo: 250k
Guelph: 300k
Brampton: 1 million
Mississauga: 1 million
Milton: 450k
Vaughan: 1 million
Barrie: 450k
Oshawa: 400k
Hamilton: 800k
London: 500k
Brantford: 200k
Woodstock: 55k
Ingersoll: 20k
Stratford: 45k

I haven't seen any projections, but your estimate for London seems a bit light. I would have thought 600K.

[saffronleaf]

edit-nvm

[urbandreamer]

I think London could hit 550k however I see most of the growth going to Hamilton and KW-C. All day GO service to Toronto will be the draw. GO could add a stop between Baden & New Hamburg causing these towns to merge into a larger suburb of around 50-75,000. Breslau will properly join Kitchener when it begins to sprawl towards Guelph. I believe Doug Ford is soon to make an announcement about twinning highway 7/Victoria Street between Kitchener and Guelph.

An NHL team makes more sense around Breslau: the Hwy 7 & Fountain Street area would be the perfect location near an airport, future GO station and widened hwy 7 - attracting people from Guelph, Milton, North Hamilton/Burlington, KW-C and Stratford-London areas than one in London. The Grand River Goons perhaps?

[svlt]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

In terms of professional sports teams, I'd like to see the following expansion teams by 2050. Not feeling too confident about it but we'll see.

CFL expansion teams:
- Quebec
- Halifax
- London
- Victoria
- Saskatoon

NHL expansion teams:
- Quebec

MLS expansion teams:
- Ottawa
- Calgary
- Edmonton

MLB expansion teams:
- Montreal
- Vancouver

NBA expansion teams:
- Vancouver
- Montreal

Each of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver would have teams in the CFL, NHL, MLS, MLB, NBA.

Each of Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton would have teams in the CFL, NHL, MLS.

Each of Quebec and Winnipeg would have teams in the CFL, NHL.

Pro sports I think has mostly stabilized. Growth could be more focused outside of North American rather than in.

CFL I think will be lucky (but possible) to end up with 12 teams in 2050, mostly with Halifax already within the next three years, and then a QC and a Western team in the decades after.

I agree the NHL will add one Canadian team in Quebec by 2050 and call this market completely saturated. Hockey isn't really growing in this country and isn't marketed well to the next generation.

MLS won't want to, or even be allowed to add any more Canadian teams with the new CPL. Enough American markets at hand. By 2050 the current Canadian MLS teams may look into, or already be moved out of the league. The CPL though I think will have 16 teams (additions of 2 in BC, 2 in SK, 2 in ON, 2 in QC and 1 in the Atlantic) with another dozen or so in a lower Canadian league.

MLB I don't think has much growth in it and probably firmly remains an American league. At best we will see one additional team in Montreal by 2050

NBA I have more faith in trying to grow the game in Canada. They are very in tune with the younger generation and the tastes of immigrants and I can easily see a return to Vancouver and a new team in Montreal.

E-sports (encompassing all the new technologies yet to be seen in terms of gaming and participation) will possibly be as big as any of the major leagues, if not bigger. Though I would caution against a prediction for complete upheaval of the current stalwarts, they've mostly been stable for the past 30 years. I can see several future major E sport franchises establishing roots and connections in TOR/MTL/VAN.

Much lighter in tone for discussion compared to the rest of the topics on this thread, but nonetheless just as amusing to speculate on

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by svlt

Pro sports I think has mostly stabilized. Growth could be more focused outside of North American rather than in.

Leagues always say that when they're not in expansion mode. There's nothing preventing leagues from moving to 40 teams, 50 teams, etc. Besides, getting an expansion franchise isn't the only option. One can buy a team and re-locate it.

Originally Posted by svlt

MLS won't want to, or even be allowed to add any more Canadian teams with the new CPL.

What do you mean by MLS not being allowed to? Surely they can set up in any market they want. CPL has no legal avenue to block competition from another league.