Winnipeg Population Growth Estimates

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger@Heart

McFadyen would make us more competive in terms of taxes (such as eliminating the payroll tax). He is younger, and more hip, which is what Winnipeg needs. The NDP is old and tired. Filmon was a moron, but everyone was hurting back then. The NDP has no regard for cost-cutting, but spend spend spend.

LOL, if you want a "hip and cool" premier, maybe you should get John K Samson or Ace Burpee to run. Everyone was hurting back then? Maybe you haven't heard about the worst recession since the depression, which Manitoba has seemingly dodged - i.e. everyone is hurting NOW, except us and a few others...

As for cost-cutting and spend spend spend, I don't think you've even ventured onto the PC website lately: Surprisingly, now that it's election time, it lacks any substantial policy proposals or alternatives (except on a couple issues, of course, like bipole 3). However, a few months ago, their old website was what you'd call a paradox: More funding for seniors, more investment in roads and infrastructure, more funding for rural doctors and healthcare, more funding for training to make manitoba competitive. Great! These are all things I can support - however, they all require increased spending as well. How is McFadyen going to CUT taxes (and thus revenues), but INCREASE spending for all of these initiatives? I can't wait until someone actually asks Hughie where he would be cutting from first... Better yet, where would cut from? Health; Education; Infrastructure? Because realistically, anything other than those is really not going to bring about substantial savings...

[Winnipegger@Heart]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

What a bunch of bull. The NDP has cut taxes most years, but there simply isn't room to make huge cuts. 40% of the budget goes to healthcare, and most of the rest is split between education and infrastructure. What do you think McFadyen is going to do, pull a rabbit out of his hat? BTW, the NDP beat their deficit projections for the last two years, and balanced the budget every year before that. And before you say anything about transfer payments, it isn't as if they can refuse them.

NDP tax cuts = giving the crust of a piece of bread to a homeless person...whoopee. Get serious. The NDP never wants to surpass mediocrity, while McFadyen believes we can do better.

From Manitoba Hydro (ie: west side line as opposed to east), to a lack of rural ERs, to an increase in the number of children in the care of CFS, to misuse of MPIC & MB Hydro funds, to filling the pockets of its cabinet ministers at the expense of the debt, to ignoring the deficit, to suspending the balanced-budget law, the NDP is out of touch. Don't expect any surplus in a few years, because the words surplus and NDP can never be used together.

Yeah, good ol' transfer payments; why bother to find new ways to get revenue when the rest of the country supports us very nicely. The only reason why the NDP can refer to budgets as being balanced is thanks to these, yet how balanced can budgets be when the deficit is so high.

I could see McFadyen hanging out downtown; Sellinger? Yeah, don't think so. McFadyen appeals more to us younger folk.

[Biff]

.........soooooooooo, i think i heard somewhere that the population is growing.

Can anyone here direct me to the Manitoba politics thread? I would really like to read about politics and the upcoming election. (Heavy on the sarcasm people, move it to a different thread)

[SmileyBoy]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger@Heart

NDP tax cuts = giving the crust of a piece of bread to a homeless person...whoopee. Get serious. The NDP never wants to surpass mediocrity, while McFadyen believes we can do better.

From Manitoba Hydro (ie: west side line as opposed to east), to a lack of rural ERs, to an increase in the number of children in the care of CFS, to misuse of MPIC & MB Hydro funds, to filling the pockets of its cabinet ministers at the expense of the debt, to ignoring the deficit, to suspending the balanced-budget law, the NDP is out of touch. Don't expect any surplus in a few years, because the words surplus and NDP can never be used together.

Yeah, good ol' transfer payments; why bother to find new ways to get revenue when the rest of the country supports us very nicely. The only reason why the NDP can refer to budgets as being balanced is thanks to these, yet how balanced can budgets be when the deficit is so high.

I could see McFadyen hanging out downtown; Sellinger? Yeah, don't think so. McFadyen appeals more to us younger folk.

Maybe it's just me, but when I think of someone who's "hip and young" I never picture a conservative/right-winger. It's always a liberal/someone on the left that I think of.

I personally think the terms "politically conservative" and "hip" are complete oxymorons, BTW.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by SmileyBoy

Maybe it's just me, but when I think of someone who's "hip and young" I never picture a conservative/right-winger. It's always a liberal/someone on the left that I think of.

I personally think the terms "politically conservative" and "hip" are complete oxymorons, BTW.

True story! Lol!

I personally have trouble believing a middle aged, divorced/separated, non-practicing lawyer with PC party credentials is "hip".

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

True story! Lol!

I personally have trouble believing a middle aged, divorced/separated, non-practicing lawyer with PC party credentials is "hip".

But guys, living in Lindenwoods makes one especially hip!

[Spocket]

It's funny how often this subject comes up at the office . I'm always finding myself saying "Stop trying to fix what ain't broken !"

Look , the NDP have not governed the province in some exceptional manner that makes them deserving of heaps of praise but you have no choice but to admit that things are going pretty well .
We weathered the economic crisis better than most jurisdictions in the developed world and we've seen our population grow in the last ten years than we have in the thirty years prior . I used to say (and mean it) that I hated the NDP . I still do hate what they stand for (socialism) BUT the bunch we have in office right now are clearly running things pretty well . As well as we can reasonably expect anyway . Give praise where it's due .

If you insist on a "hip" new leader I suggest you take a look at how well that worked for Stockwell Day back in the day . Jetski anyone ? Simply being cool , hip , and young are not particularly great character assets to have when we're talking about running a government . The younger they are the more idealistic they tend to be . Worse yet , young idealists always want to fix what ain't broken because they always think they could do things better . It never occurs to them that things are the way they are due to years (sometimes) of haggling and eventual compromise .

The NDP is leading this province through some relatively good years and , since the subject is supposed to be population growth , it's totally unfair to dismiss the tremendous gains Manitoba has made over the past decade . No , they don't get all the credit (since it was Filmon's idea in the first place) but they didn't tinker with it much and that's smart .

Like I said , I've never been a fan of the NDP but I'll grudgingly admit that they deserve a fair bit of credit for the number of people heading to Manitoba . Maybe things could be better (couldn't they always be better ?) but I see no good reason to assume that McFadyen is the guy to make all our population dreams come true .

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Biff

I don't know if anyone knows what I'm talking about, but i remember reading somewhere (i can't seem to find it now) that there is a theoretical magic population number where a city or region hit a critical mass.

At this number things begin to really snowball quickly regarding growth. I thought that i remember reading that the number was around 850,000. I know that Alberta is a bit of an anomaly because of the oil wealth but for some reason both the cities of Edmonton and Calgary seemed to shoot from the 800,000 number to around 1.1 million overnight. It didn't seem like they were in the 900,000 range for very long. In fact there doesn't seem to be very many cities in North America in the 850k to 950k population range. There are a ton of cities in the States over 1 million (in the 1-2 million range). There is also a ton of cities in the 650k to 800k range.

If anyone is into population or statistics and can verify what I'm talking about i would love to hear about it.

The "magic number" is really just something that somebody looking at these things happened to notice one day and inferred causation of population growth despite a lack of evidence .

It's kinda of like that "23" thing where people can always seem to find the number 23 hidden in just about anything if they screw around with it for long enough .

The cities in the same population range as Winnipeg tend to be in the States . Considering that there are nearly 10 Americans for every Canadian , it's pretty easy to see why we similarly large cities in the U.S. elude our attention . We're talking about places like Fresno , Boise , Harrisburg , Syracuse , and so on . In truth , you can do the same thing for virtually any city population range . How many cities have populations in the 1 - 1.3 million range ? The number seems small again .

In any case , the real motivator for population growth is and has always been the economy . More jobs eventually translates into more people .

[GORDBO]

Back in Dec. 1999. The Free Press ran a series of articles regarding the possible future of Wpg. into the 2,000s. I remember reading, that the number for which the city would reach it's "magic number", would be the 750,000 mark. It also predicted that number would be achieved by around 2010.
However, they also noted that the Seguey could be a success

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Spocket

In any case , the real motivator for population growth is and has always been the economy . More jobs eventually translates into more people .

That's key, but there have been lots of studies that deal with critical mass. When one looks at a regions ability to attract top talent, assembly plants, high calibre exhibits/pro sports/theatre, etc. there does seem to be a size where these things start to become feasible.

Just look at the Jets. If Winnipeg had 500,000 people in the metropolitan area, the NHL would not be coming to town no matter how popular the NHL is. Companies do look at size of market when deciding where to locate; IKEA being a well known example.

Would the Royal Winnipeg Ballet be sustainable in today's market if Winnipeg had 500,000 people? Would the CMHR have come to Winnipeg? There are a myriad things like this that do depend on city size.

Most of the studies I've read do point to 750,000-1,000,000 being the size when these critical building blocks start coming together for a city. Cities start thinking about LRT/subways at around 1,000,000+, they usually have hospitals large enough to attract top notch research, and airlines start contemplating regular frequent service (beyond the 1 or 2 incumbents).

When a city attracts something significant it acts as a magnet for others. More follows, which attracts yet more and more. It's a domino effect.

[Spocket]

Yeah , I also remember Glen Murray pushing that number as some sort of critical mass point .

The problem with that statement is that it can't be fixed . If every city suddenly shot up to 750,000 then , again , what makes one city more inviting than the next ?

When it comes to certain infrastructure improvements then we can look at virtually any city and see that there's no rule . When did Phoenix get LRT ? Where's the Ikea in Las Vegas ? Where's the NFL in Los Angeles ?

On the other hand Green Bay has the Packers , Reykjavik has an Ikea , and Calgary had LRT when it was at half a million .

The point isn't to nitpick but rather to point out that clearly there's a lot more to it than any rather arbitrary number , especially one that must necessarily fluctuate . In fact , all we have to do is look outside of the developed world and we know that the number is far from meaningful . In China there are a hundred cities in the 750,000 range and not a single one of them has a subway or LRT , Ikea , or recently established major cultural institution drawing international visitors .

Feasibility of establishing certain industries is another area where the exceptions don't prove the rule . Most industries are dependent on some resource . As such those industries concentrate in locations close to whatever resource we're talking about . Sometimes it's the location itself that is a city's greatest asset . New York provides a good example .
Yes , a crowd attracts a crowd and some things require a minimum population in the vicinity to be able to support them . Again though , population alone tells us nothing and one need only look at , oh , say Baghdad , Lagos , or Havana to see why this is true .

[roccerfeller]

For fun, check out how the growth estimates of Winnipeg have changed in the last few years....

Here's a study from September 2007 http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/population_forecast.pdf

vs a preliminary one from May 2011
http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/population.pdf

In 2007:

It was projected that the CMA would hit over 800 000 people in 2019

By 2011, it was projected to be 735 100

In 2011:

It is projected that the CMA will hit over 800 000 people in 2015 (in the 2007 study, in 2015 we were originally projected to reach 768 500)

today the CMA is estimated at 764 200

-------------------------------------------------

All according to the city. I think it just highlights how in a few short years, we've grown more than expected. Good news that these trends will probably continue especially given the healthier economic outlook for the future in Winnipeg.

[Chadillaccc]

I wonder what the latest numbers are saying about when the Peg will pass 1 million? Also, when will Rockwood, Cartier and St. Andrews be absorbed into the Census Metropolitan Area?

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I wonder what the latest numbers are saying about when the Peg will pass 1 million? Also, when will Rockwood, Cartier and St. Andrews be absorbed into the Census Metropolitan Area?

It is a tragedy of epic proportions that St.Andrews is not considered part of the Winnipeg CMA.

[Riverman]

St. Andrews could not be annexed without annexing West St. Paul first.

Not gonna happen.

[Joshy]

Originally Posted by Riverman

St. Andrews could not be annexed without annexing West St. Paul first.

Not gonna happen.

Being part of a CMA does not automatically mean being part of the city. St. Andrew's can be part of the Winnipeg CMA without having to become a suburb of the city.

[rypinion]

Originally Posted by Joshy

Being part of a CMA does not automatically mean being part of the city. St. Andrew's can be part of the Winnipeg CMA without having to become a suburb of the city.

To continue on the CMA explanation, here is what the Winnipeg CMA includes, from wikipedia:

Apart from Winnipeg, the Winnipeg CMA includes the Rural municipalities of Springfield, St. Clements, Taché, East St. Paul, Macdonald, Ritchot, West St. Paul, Headingley, Rosser and St. François Xavier and the First Nations reserve of Brokenhead 4.

Does anybody know if there are any well-defined rules for when a rural/suburb municipality should be in a city's CMA, something like "50% of the workforce needs to work in the city proper"?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Joshy

Being part of a CMA does not automatically mean being part of the city. St. Andrew's can be part of the Winnipeg CMA without having to become a suburb of the city.

Sorry, I didn't realize that.

[Authentic_City]

Originally Posted by rypinion

Does anybody know if there are any well-defined rules for when a rural/suburb municipality should be in a city's CMA, something like "50% of the workforce needs to work in the city proper"?

The most important rules are: 1) 50% of the workforce of the adjacent town/city/municipality (e.g. St. Andrews) must commute to work in the the urban core (e.g. Winnipeg) or 2) 25% of the adjacent area's workforce commutes from the core (e.g. Winnipeg).

St. Andrews is certainly part of the Winnipeg CMA.

Lots of detailed info can be found here at Statistics Canada (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...009a-eng.cfm):

"Delineation rules for CMAs and CAs

A CMA or CA is delineated using adjacent municipalities (census subdivisions) as building blocks. These census subdivisions (CSDs) are included in the CMA or CA if they meet at least one of the following rules. The rules are ranked in order of priority. A CSD obeying the rules for two or more CMAs or CAs is included in the one for which it has the highest ranked rule. If the CSD meets rules that have the same rank, the decision is based on the population or the number of commuters involved. A CMA or CA is delineated to ensure spatial contiguity.

1. Urban core rule: The CSD falls completely or partly inside the urban core.

[...]

2. Forward commuting flow rule: Given a minimum of 100 commuters, at least 50% of the employed labour force living in the CSD works in the delineation urban core (see following note), as determined from commuting data based on the place of work question in the last decennial census (2001 Census).

[...]

3. Reverse commuting flow rule: Given a minimum of 100 commuters, at least 25% of the employed labour force working in the CSD lives in the delineation urban core as determined from commuting data based on the place of work question in the last decennial census (2001 Census)."

[...]

There are several other factors/rules that are considered by Stats Canada, but the other rules become quite complicated.

[roccerfeller]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I wonder what the latest numbers are saying about when the Peg will pass 1 million? Also, when will Rockwood, Cartier and St. Andrews be absorbed into the Census Metropolitan Area?

Its tough to say. For instance, what I wanted to indicate was that we are growing fast than predicted even as recent as 2007...if that type of growth continues, say we grow twice what we predict, then we will reach that "1 million" target twice as fast (so instead of 20 years from now it would be 10 years from now, as an example). The general consensus is that Winnipeg will not be 1 million till sometime from 2030-2035. That said, so much can happen that is unforeseen. Likely Winnipeg won't have some crazy outburst of anything like an oil boom akin to Calgary, but it is unforeseen what the economy will be like then, or perhaps if Winnipeg becomes the most attractive place for immigrants or whatever. Tons of things could happen. Stats are good at predicting but don't give a whole or real picture.

Look at Saskatchewan: even as recent as 2001-2006 projections for Regina and Saskatoon were entirely non-existent to reach even 300k people. But the truth is today both cities are amongst the fastest growing in Canada, something that no one from 2001 would have guessed with the stats alone.


@Authentic City - so these areas Chadilliac mentioned are counted in the CMA when stats Can does their stuff?

Are they counted in the Winnipeg studies? I noticed stats Can & City of Winnipeg had some population stats that varied at times.



Anyway its fun to note:

2007 - 2011 is 4 years

The difference in estimations is 29.1k, which is 900 people away from 30 000.

a +30k population increase in the last 4 years than originally projected is pretty good and healthy for a "slow and steady" city.