Alberta Population Growth

[Chadillaccc]

How do you figure that it won't be for a long time? Clearly you don't keep up with the goings on with statistics in Canada, but the Lethbridge Census Agglomeration surpassed 100 000, hitting 105 000 in the last census, meaning that it will be reclassified as a metropolitan area in the next census.

Parts of metropolitan areas clearly don't have to be contiguous. You think Airdrie is connected to Calgary via some thin stretch of suburbanity? It is not. Neither is Cochrane, nor is Leduc or Fort Saskatchewan for Edmonton, or Langley, White Rock, or Delta for Vancouver. The list goes on and on.



You think this phenominon is unique to Canada? Have you ever heard of the United States? A little place... about 320 million people, some of them living in "metropolitan areas" larger than the nation of El Salvador. Canada's formula is pretty solid compared to some parts of the world. Calgary has the smallest geographic metro area of all three of Canada 1-million-people cities, so I don't know what you're getting at with Edmonton having a more "actual" metro area.

[ue]

Originally Posted by speedog

Having lived in the Lethbridge area in the past, never would anyone in Fort Macleod or Picture Butte or Magrath or Nobleford or Stirling or Coalhurst would consider themselves a metropolitan part of Lethbridge. Even Coaldale would be stretching it - that 6 miles of farmland between Coaldale and Lethbridge is going to take 50 years if not more to fill up with development.

So Lethbridge is 91,000 for all purposes - it's not a metropolitan area by any means and won't be for a long time. Same goes for Red Deer and even for Calgary where I would only consider Chestermere and Airdrie to maybe pe a part of Calgary's metropolitan area. Okotoks and Cochrane are still too far out. Edmonton, on the other hand, has a considerable metropolitan area what with many smaller cities/towns right on it's borders - something that Calgary doesn't have with possibly the exception of Chestermere. Even Airdrie's developed area is 6-7 miles from the nearest developed areas of Calgary.

Never the less, too many people get too hung up on metropolitan populations when it comes to many Canadian cities when there's only a few that probably should qualify as true metropolitan areas.

I agree with the first half of your post, but not the second.

Chad was a bit liberal I think with the Lethbridge numbers as Fort MacLeod feels like it's in a completely different space from Lethbridge. One isn't the suburb of the other. Overall, I wouldn't say Lethbridge has much of a metropolitan area. Red Deer has a bit of one, though, with areas like Sylvan Lake in close proximity feeding off of Red Deer's amenities.

As for Edmonton and Calgary, they both have metropolitan areas, though Edmonton's is more developed, I guess. Leduc, Spruce Grove, and Morinville are all very connected to Edmonton. My litmus test for if a city is a suburb of a central city (like Edmonton or Calgary) is to ask if these places would support the same population or amenities without the central city. In Leduc, Spruce Grove, and Morinville's case, all of these would still be small prairie towns without Edmonton, regardless of whether or not they are contiguous with Edmonton's urban fabric today. Same thing for Calgary and Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere, Langdon, Okotoks, etc.

Prairie metropolitan areas are generally a bit more spaced out compared to other metropolitan areas in Canada, though even Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal have suburbs not apart of the contiguous urban area.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

How do you figure that it won't be for a long time? Clearly you don't keep up with the goings on with statistics in Canada, but the Lethbridge Census Agglomeration surpassed 100 000, hitting 105 000 in the last census, meaning that it will be reclassified as a metropolitan area in the next census.

Parts of metropolitan areas clearly don't have to be contiguous. You think Airdrie is connected to Calgary via some thin stretch of suburbanity? It is not. Neither is Cochrane, nor is Leduc or Fort Saskatchewan for Edmonton, or Langley, White Rock, or Delta for Vancouver. The list goes on and on.



You think this phenominon is unique to Canada? Have you ever heard of the United States? A little place... about 320 million people, some of them living in "metropolitan areas" larger than the nation of El Salvador. Canada's formula is pretty solid compared to some parts of the world. Calgary has the smallest geographic metro area of all three of Canada 1-million-people cities, so I don't know what you're getting at with Edmonton having a more "actual" metro area.

You are a sensitive guy when others don't agree with you, aren't you.

By the city of Lethbridge's own 2013 census results, they were just shy of 91,000 people. I don't care about census agglomeration or whatever - even you put in your own post that Lethbridge was 91,000 people. GOC staticians can say whatever they want but most people living in Fort Macleod would probably laugh if told they were part of the Lethbridge metropolitan area.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by speedog

You are a sensitive guy when others don't agree with you, aren't you.

By the city of Lethbridge's own 2013 census results, they were just shy of 91,000 people. I don't care about census agglomeration or whatever - even you put in your own post that Lethbridge was 91,000 people. GOC staticians can say whatever they want but most people living in Fort Macleod would probably laugh if told they were part of the Lethbridge metropolitan area.

CMAs are based on the number of people that commute to the larger community I believe. Some communities ringing Calgary are in the CMA and some are not (even though they are closer than some of the ones that are in).

Edit:

To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core, as measured by commuting flows derived from previous census place of work data.

[Boris2k7]

There's also a reverse commuting rule that can be used to define a CMA, but it requires a much greater degree of traffic flow from the core outwards.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah.
Lethbridge census agglomeration includes:

Lethbridge
Lethbridge County
Coaldale
Coalhurst
Picture Butte
Nobleford
Barons

Red Deer only includes Red Deer proper. I bet the amount of industrial growth outside of the city is responsible for that - maybe even 10 years ago it might have been different.

[Chadillaccc]

Thanks for the actual info Malcolm, but my original comment was just theoretical metro areas, and I think I was pretty spot on for Red Deer at least. Maybe remove Eckville. By theoretical I guess you could also say "possible future metro area" or whatever.

Originally Posted by speedog

You are a sensitive guy when others don't agree with you, aren't you.

No, just when pedants don't know what they're talking about and try to start arguments over amature theoretical statistical analysis for basically no reason other than to be a dick.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

No, just when pedants don't know what they're talking about and try to start arguments over amature theoretical statistical analysis for basically no reason other than to be a dick.

Kind of childish, no?

BTW, I wasn't intending to be a dick but if that's your perception, then oh well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and you can continue calling me names to soothe yourself.

And amature? Really? This either does or doesn't speak volumes about yourself.

[Chadillaccc]

Starting arguments online for no reason I think speaks a bit louder about you, than me being an amateur in statistical analysis does about me, actually. Just for reference, you personally insulted me first, so don't try to pull the victim card. I don't know why something like that would "speak volumes about me" anyways. I am 23 years old, how am I supposed to not be an amateur in this sort of thing? lmao!



In actual news, Alberta's population is now forecasted to hit 7 million by 2041, under the high growth scenario. That is pretty impressive. That would put, what, 6.5 million in the Corridor? By then the corridor may also include Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, since they will be major cities in their own right (238 000 and 133 000 respectively [medium growth]) by then. This province has a pretty bright future ahead!

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Starting arguments online for no reason I think speaks a bit louder about you, than me being an amateur in statistical analysis does about me, actually. Just for reference, you personally insulted me first, so don't try to pull the victim card. I don't know why something like that would "speak volumes about me" anyways. I am 23 years old, how am I supposed to not be an amateur in this sort of thing? lmao!



In actual news, Alberta's population is now forecasted to hit 7 million by 2041, under the high growth scenario. That is pretty impressive. That would put, what, 6.5 million in the Corridor? By then the corridor may also include Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, since they will be major cities in their own right (238 000 and 133 000 respectively [medium growth]) by then. This province has a pretty bright future ahead!

Interesting the Areas of Calgary and Edmonton are projected to continue to increase their lead as the majority of population in the province. 2012 is around 68% of total found within(with Calgary slightly larger share), projected to reach 73% by 2041.

It's amazing how the Alberta political system is designed to be so anti-urban given the majority of issues and population already are in the big cities and areas around them. Increasingly so from now on.

If you could consolidate the vote for focusing on urban issues and get a big-city party with some momentum behind it, you could lock out opposition for a generation.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Interesting the Areas of Calgary and Edmonton are projected to continue to increase their lead as the majority of population in the province. 2012 is around 68% of total found within(with Calgary slightly larger share), projected to reach 73% by 2041.

It's amazing how the Alberta political system is designed to be so anti-urban given the majority of issues and population already are in the big cities and areas around them. Increasingly so from now on.

If you could consolidate the vote for focusing on urban issues and get a big-city party with some momentum behind it, you could lock out opposition for a generation.

Absolutely correct. And due mainly for two large reasons:

1. the province starting with a largely rural population compared to urban and the political system was designed to reflect that. Change has not kept pace with the rapid urbanization.

2. the fact that the PC's have been in power for > 40 years. Their traditional power base has been rural Alberta so why would they be in any rush to change the system when it would be to their political disadvantage.

[MalcolmTucker]

When you look at the last redistricting, at least for the population right then, the weight was pretty close to bang on - I don't think any ridings were out more the 5% +/- at the time. This is quite a change from the distribution done before the 2004 election on what I assume was the 2001 census where some ridings were really out of whack.

[Chadillaccc]

Alberta and BC are both growing really healthily



Three-month growth:

Canada: 82 562

Alberta: 28 938
Ontario: 21 970
British Columbia: 14 375
Quebec: 12 234
Saskatchewan: 5 085
Manitoba: 3 000
Prince Edward Island: 261
New Brunswick: -940
Nova Scotia: -1 196
Newfoundland and Labrador: -1 520

Nunavut: 306
Yukon: 79
Northwest Territories: -182



Yearly growth:

Canada: 402 228

Alberta: 129 269
Ontario: 122 544
Quebec: 62 400
British Columbia: 56 374
Saskatchewan: 21 180
Manitoba: 14 293
Prince Edward Island: 647
New Brunswick: -1 111
Newfoundland and Labrador: -2 312
Nova Scotia: -2 313

Nunavut: 1 366
Yukon: 36
Northwest Territories: -145

Western Canada: 222 399
Eastern Canada: 179 855

[Prairie boy]

That's it NDP, keep Manitoba down!

[Chadillaccc]

Western Canada now accounts for 32% of the national population. By 2020, that number will be approximately 34%... not bad

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Absolutely correct. And due mainly for two large reasons:

1. the province starting with a largely rural population compared to urban and the political system was designed to reflect that. Change has not kept pace with the rapid urbanization.

2. the fact that the PC's have been in power for > 40 years. Their traditional power base has been rural Alberta so why would they be in any rush to change the system when it would be to their political disadvantage.

With the Wild Rose also rurally focused I wonder if the PCs might shift to be a more urban party.

[MalcolmTucker]

What makes a party an urban party or a rural party in your mind?

[DizzyEdge]

Well I think the main issue I've heard WR talk about is property rights which seems rurally focused. To be honest though, I can't say I've heard much policy coming from WR other than that, although I'm sure they have something on their website. Any idea how many ridings are rural/small town vs say cgy/edm/Red Deer/Lethbridge?

[MalcolmTucker]

City of Calgary - 25
Calgary Region - 2 urban, 3 Rural/Urban combined
City of Edmonton - 19
Edmonton Region - 2 urban, 6/7 Rural/Urban combined
Red Deer - 2 Urban
Lethbridge - 2 Urban
Medicine Hat - 1 Urban, 1 Rural/Urban combined
Grande Prairie - 2 Rural/Urban combined
Fort McMurray - 2 Rural/Urban combined

For a total of 53 for pure urban, 14/15 urban rural combined out of 87 seats.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I can't say I've heard much policy coming from WR other than that

WR policy flowchart:

    Are the PCs for this?
             |
             |
      |--------------|
     Yes             No
      |              |
      |              |
    We're          We're
   against          for
      it             it