Whats the population of your livable area.

[Stryker]

Yeah I guess it`s probably the strangest term I`ve ever made up. But here goes, what is your livable area. People often mention the size of the city or metro that they live in, yet they rarely if ever go to many parts of a metro city.


So what i did was tally up the electoral districts of st johns, that I actually have lived in, or worked in. I`ve gotten a total of about 35k, out of 200k in the metro.

[FrAnKs]

Thats a tough question.

Roughly I would have sad something between 50k and 60k on a city of 520k and a metro area of 770k

[vid]

I live and work just outside of downtown and only leave my neighbourhood to visit family or buy groceries at a Superstore in an industrial park so my livable area is a tiny fraction of the city and has only 3,500 people.

[Beedok]

Currently I'm not sure, fairly small as I don't go around Ottawa that much, but when I was in Hamilton I would go all over the city pretty frequently.

[canarob]

As a GO Train commuter in the GTA, my livable area is basically a 5-10 KM radius around where I live in Markham and downtown Toronto where I work, meet friends, go to events, etc. Aside from riding on the train/bus or driving past it, I rarely go to places in between (Scarborough, etc.) or any of the other 905 suburbs, except for the odd house party or wedding. Given its size, this is very common in the GTA.

[floobie]

I came up with two rough figures.

First, counting the neighborhoods I live in, work in, and visit more or less daily: 45000
Second, the above plus other areas in the city I visit frequently: 500000

[mike474]

~100,000

[SignalHillHiker]

When I lived on the mainland and was working to move back home, I had this exact conversation with two mainland Canadian friends.

One asked if, no matter how much I love it, I could really go back to a town of just 100,000 and some. And then the other said, "But, really... how much of any city do you actually LIVE in?"

Anyhow... mine here is quite large, I think. Definitely more than 100,000 because my parents are in Mount Pearl, I have relatives almost everywhere in the city (from Quidi Vidi to Holyrood), I go downtown or on Signal Hill EVERY day, and I often do my shopping on Stavanger.

So that's most of the St. John's area. BUT I almost never go off the main streets like Columbus and Torbay when in that part of the city.

[1ajs]

my nieghborhood consists of 900 houses i know the exact number cause i have actualy collected data on all of them for community planning stuff... to do with grants and such...

i think theres proly 2500people max in the area i call home maybe less maybe more i honestly don't know

[MonctonRad]

Moncton has about 143,000 in the CMA.

My main hangout is the northwest end/Magnetic Hill, which I know very well. I work in north central Moncton (The Moncton Hospital), and know that area quite well too. I would say that my Moncton encompasses a population of about 30-35,000.

I also know the power centre district around Mapleton Road and areas of Dieppe around Champlain Place very well too. Most of Dieppe and Riverview however are terra incognita.

Curiously, for an urbanist, I rarely go downtown but I view this as being symptomatic of the depressing decentralization of the greater Moncton area. The universities, hospitals, major shopping areas and the main sporting facilities are all outside the downtown core. As such, unless you work downtown or want to go to a restaurant or booze it up in a club, there is very little reason to actually go downtown. This is sad as the core actually has a lot of potential. There is a push to build a new 10,000 seat downtown arena/ events centre in the city. This would give the core a focus that it currently doesn't have. I pray that it will be built soon.

[ssiguy]

Down here in South Surrey/White Rock there are now about 80,000 and growing very quickly. Many people don't realize that much of the population growth of Surrey has actually happened in South Surrey.

[Stryker]

When I lived on the mainland and was working to move back home, I had this exact conversation with two mainland Canadian friends.

One asked if, no matter how much I love it, I could really go back to a town of just 100,000 and some. And then the other said, "But, really... how much of any city do you actually LIVE in?"

Yeah I've had a very similar experience. Only I was the one saying I couldn't live in a place with less than 100k. The reality is I need far less than that.

Granted I think the demographic your living in is far more important that they size of it.


If it were all like minded people close to my age I'd be happy living in a place of 400.

[MrChills]

When I lived on the mainland and was working to move back home, I had this exact conversation with two mainland Canadian friends.

One asked if, no matter how much I love it, I could really go back to a town of just 100,000 and some. And then the other said, "But, really... how much of any city do you actually LIVE in?"

Anyhow... mine here is quite large, I think. Definitely more than 100,000 because my parents are in Mount Pearl, I have relatives almost everywhere in the city (from Quidi Vidi to Holyrood), I go downtown or on Signal Hill EVERY day, and I often do my shopping on Stavanger.

So that's most of the St. John's area. BUT I almost never go off the main streets like Columbus and Torbay when in that part of the city.

I think that is a good point - the last time I lived in St. John's I was there for three years and I can seriously count the times we left dowtown on two hands. My wife and I both worked there, shopped, ate and hung out in a less than 5km radius.

Even now currently living in Edmonton, 90% we very rarely leave our constant area, although funny enough in a city five times the size of St. John's that circle has grown to a 25km radius to service the same things St. John's provided in a 5km radius.

[freeweed]

Maybe I'm the only one who explores his/her city/province/country on this thread...

Rare is the week where I just sit in my local neighbourhood. It helps that I work downtown and live in the burbs, but still - even beyond that, I'm always hopping in the car or on the train and exploring. Hell, it's a rare week when I just stay within the one city. Most of the time I'm out finding new things on the weekend. One of my biggest complaints with Canada is that we rarely have large centres nearby - in most of the country, you have to drive several hours just to hit another major city.

My number in the context of this thread would be in the millions. I can't imagine a life where you only live, work, and shop/eat/drink - and to go to the same places time and again for years. Sounds boring to the extreme.

[Acajack]

Maybe I'm the only one who explores his/her city/province/country on this thread...

Rare is the week where I just sit in my local neighbourhood. It helps that I work downtown and live in the burbs, but still - even beyond that, I'm always hopping in the car or on the train and exploring. Hell, it's a rare week when I just stay within the one city. Most of the time I'm out finding new things on the weekend. One of my biggest complaints with Canada is that we rarely have large centres nearby - in most of the country, you have to drive several hours just to hit another major city.

My number in the context of this thread would be in the millions. I can't imagine a life where you only live, work, and shop/eat/drink - and to go to the same places time and again for years. Sounds boring to the extreme.

For me, it's different because I have kids. I live, work, shop and my kids go to school and have activities within a roughly 5 km radius. There are about 50,000 people living in this general area.

Before we had kids (and when they are not with us), then we do stuff in a wider area which includes the zone mentioned above, with 50,000 people, and probably central Hull and downtown Ottawa as well. That wider area probably has a total population of about 200,000 people.

But as I said, with young kids you don't really have that much time for casual geographic exploration.

[MolsonExport]

Earth. 7.041 billion

I am a cross-cultural researcher.

[someone123]

I tend to go to the northern parts of Vancouver, the main parts of North/South Burnaby along the SkyTrain, New Westminster, and parts of North Vancouver and Coquitlam. I rarely go to outer suburban areas like Surrey or Richmond.

You might not visit residential neighbourhoods in other parts of the city, but the people living in those areas do have an impact on regional level businesses, events, and institutions. A certain number of people shopping in unusual shops or eating at nicer restaurants come from those places.

[240glt]

Seems like a lot of poeple rarely leave their little bubbles.


I go all over the place in Edmonton..... wouldn't necessarily live in all those places but I find that I end up covering a fair amount of geography, over say, a typical week.

[MonctonRad]

Seems like a lot of poeple rarely leave their little bubbles.

I wouldn't exactly say that I live in a bubble. I explore all over the metropolitan area but I live my life in a more contained geographic area. I think this is what the OP was getting at.

[Xelebes]

I live where 71 000 people live, or 8.79% of the city proper population live and roughly 6.25% of the metro population live. I'm mostly bound by where transit permits, so much of what lies beyond of the city borders is beyond my reach.

[freeweed]

I wouldn't exactly say that I live in a bubble. I explore all over the metropolitan area but I live my life in a more contained geographic area. I think this is what the OP was getting at.

Define "live my life". How often does one have to go somewhere before it becomes part of your everyday life? (Rhetorical question)

I mean, if we're just going by home-work-groceries, as some seem to have taken this - how many people live within an 8 foot corridor of the C-Train, plus my several block walk to work? I don't ever actually interact with any of these people, and often don't buy groceries for a week or more, so can I define my "livable area" as a few dozen people?

[Xelebes]

Define "live my life". How often does one have to go somewhere before it becomes part of your everyday life? (Rhetorical question)

I mean, if we're just going by home-work-groceries, as some seem to have taken this - how many people live within an 8 foot corridor of the C-Train, plus my several block walk to work? I don't ever actually interact with any of these people, and often don't buy groceries for a week or more, so can I define my "livable area" as a few dozen people?

How I define it:

Where I sleep.
Where I work.
Where I obtain food.
Where I obtain supplies.
Where I take my dog for a walk.

I did not include places that I bypass on my commute.

[JHikka]

~130,000 in the Metro
~60,000 in the City

I probably cover about 10-15K a day if I include driving to the University, or Uptown for lunch, or to buy some groceries.

[240glt]

I think it's the term being used that is misleading... "liveable area".. kinda reminds me of when people talk about "walkable" areas.... like, what, your legs fall off when you are more than 100 feet away from a Starbucks ?

The more accurate question would be "what's the population of the area where you spend most of your time"

For me still, I live in the north central area of the city so I spend a lot of time either at home or in my immediate vicinity for shopping, food, etc... I bike and walk the dog all over the city, right from the core to the far flung suburbs, work downtown, like to drink in Oliver or East Whyte, go to Home Depot on the north end, Costco in Sherwood Park, visit friends in the west end, and on & on. I am all over the place.

[Stryker]

Define "live my life". How often does one have to go somewhere before it becomes part of your everyday life? (Rhetorical question)

I mean, if we're just going by home-work-groceries, as some seem to have taken this - how many people live within an 8 foot corridor of the C-Train, plus my several block walk to work? I don't ever actually interact with any of these people, and often don't buy groceries for a week or more, so can I define my "livable area" as a few dozen people?
You can twist the question any way you want.

Many seem to get what Im saying no need to reinvent the wheel.


And as far as living in a bubble, my point is almost the opposite from my perspective. Too many people seem to think they need to live in massive cities with millions of people in them to live a descent quality, or even the same quality of life.

Id far rather live in an area of 35k, if it meant having easier access to a variety of different natural environments.

[Acajack]

Too many people seem to think they need to live in massive cities with millions of people in them to live a descent quality, or even the same quality of life.
.

I think this is the point of the OP. A lot of people can't imagine living in a city that doesn't have X million people but 99% of the time they are living in an urban space that has maybe 200,000 people or a lot less. If you live within the New York city limits and never leave Staten Island, how different is that from living in Albany or Madison, Wisconsin, really? I mean, sure you probably live there because you know people and everything is familiar to you, but are you really taking advantage of living in a major metropolis (assuming you almost never go to Manhattan)?

I know lots of people who live in big cities and who say they'd never live in a smaller city, but all they do is shop at Walmart, eat at Boston Pizza and go to the movies. They may live in Toronto but their lives would be no different (maybe better) if they lived in Moncton.

Ultimately it's all about their minds, and not so much about Moncton or Toronto.

[SignalHillHiker]

Do you think that proximity to, or inclusion within, a larger population centre makes it cooler and more satisfying to certain people?

Is it possible that your 200,000 corner of NYC is infinitely more satisfying than any town of 200,000 in the United States could be?

[MonkeyRonin]

I think this is the point of the OP. A lot of people can't imagine living in a city that doesn't have X million people but 99% of the time they are living in an urban space that has maybe 200,000 people or a lot less. If you live within the New York city limits and never leave Staten Island, how different is that from living in Albany or Madison, Wisconsin, really? I mean, sure you probably live there because you know people and everything is familiar to you, but are you really taking advantage of living in a major metropolis (assuming you almost never go to Manhattan)?

Ultimately it's all about their minds, and not so much about Moncton or Toronto.


A place like New York isn't just...40 Albany's though. Having all those people creates very tangible differences in built form, culture (especially cultural offerings), the economy, transportation, etc. You might not come into contact with where those millions of other people live, but you and they certainly make use of many of the same things. There's also more likely to be a critical mass of whatever kind of people you like and want to live around or associate with (very important for gays, for instance).

"My Toronto" for example consists of an area of about a million, maybe 1.5 million people (about the size of metro Ottawa or Calgary, but very, very different from what you'd get there). But, those other 4.5 million people are also among the ones I see crowding the streets, and working in the bank towers overhead, and attending the parties & festivals I go to, and driving the businesses I frequent, and moving to the new condos downtown, and paying the taxes that give us nice things, and necessitating the need for things like subways, and... you get the idea.


Is it possible that your 200,000 corner of NYC is infinitely more satisfying than any town of 200,000 in the United States could be?

Yep. You also get a whole lot more choice. There's more likely to be a 200,000-person chuck of an 18,000,000-person city that suits your needs than a 200,000-person chuck of a 300,000-person city.

[Acajack]

A place like New York isn't just...40 Albany's though. Having all those people creates very tangible differences in built form, culture (especially cultural offerings), the economy, transportation, etc. You might not come into contact with where those millions of other people live, but you and they certainly make use of many of the same things. There's also more likely to be a critical mass of whatever kind of people you like and want to live around or associate with (very important for gays, for instance).

"My Toronto" for example consists of an area of about a million, maybe 1.5 million people (about the size of metro Ottawa or Calgary, but very, very different from what you'd get there). But, those other 4.5 million people are also among the ones I see crowding the streets, and working in the bank towers overhead, and attending the parties & festivals I go to, and driving the businesses I frequent, and moving to the new condos downtown, and paying the taxes that give us nice things, and necessitating the need for things like subways, and... you get the idea.




Yep. You also get a whole lot more choice. There's more likely to be a 200,000-person chuck of an 18,000,000-person city that suits your needs than a 200,000-person chuck of a 300,000-person city.

But what happens if you don't really take advantage of it? I mean, I understand people with limited urbane interests who live in big cities because it is *home* or because that is where the jobs were, but I still find it odd to deliberately choose to live in a metropolis but to not take advantage of its amenities.

I have a couple I know who moved to Sudbury from Ottawa and hated every minute of it and couldn't wait to get back to Ottawa because Sudbury was supposedly so hick.

When asked was wrong with Sudbury they said there was nothing like the National Arts Centre, or nice cafés, or nice museums, or the canal... and added ''not that we really did any of that when we lived in Ottawa, but it's nice to have the choice if you ever want to''.

10 years later I am not sure if they have ever been to the opera or to see Van Gogh, and I am pretty sure when they go out for coffee it's at Timmies.

[MonkeyRonin]

But what happens if you don't really take advantage of it? I mean, I understand people with limited urbane interests who live in big cities because it is *home* or because that is where the jobs were, but I still find it odd to deliberately choose to live in a metropolis but to not take advantage of its amenities.


There's more to than just amenities and practicality though. There's also simply the "feel" of a place. The aesthetics, the characteristics of the populace, the various subtleties that make the place interesting, emotional attachments. Many people might not be consciously aware of it (and many more probably don't care at all), but it is nonetheless an important factor in their enjoyment of the place in question, even if they don't actively go out operas and museums. And certainly somewhere like Sudbury is going to feel quite different from Ottawa.

[Stryker]

There's more to than just amenities and practicality though. There's also simply the "feel" of a place. The aesthetics, the characteristics of the populace, the various subtleties that make the place interesting, emotional attachments. Many people might not be consciously aware of it (and many more probably don't care at all), but it is nonetheless an important factor in their enjoyment of the place in question, even if they don't actively go out operas and museums. And certainly somewhere like Sudbury is going to feel quite different from Ottawa.

I think most people that have lived a few places are perfectly aware of this. Especially those from small/eastern towns. The point is this feel isn't a product of population, but simply familiarity. Most people I think from places like rural newfoundland, have no choice but to put their feelings aside when considering relocation. It doesn't even enter into it in most cases.

[Stryker]

A place like New York isn't just...40 Albany's though. Having all those people creates very tangible differences in built form, culture (especially cultural offerings), the economy, transportation, etc. You might not come into contact with where those millions of other people live, but you and they certainly make use of many of the same things. There's also more likely to be a critical mass of whatever kind of people you like and want to live around or associate with (very important for gays, for instance).

"My Toronto" for example consists of an area of about a million, maybe 1.5 million people (about the size of metro Ottawa or Calgary, but very, very different from what you'd get there). But, those other 4.5 million people are also among the ones I see crowding the streets, and working in the bank towers overhead, and attending the parties & festivals I go to, and driving the businesses I frequent, and moving to the new condos downtown, and paying the taxes that give us nice things, and necessitating the need for things like subways, and... you get the idea.




Yep. You also get a whole lot more choice. There's more likely to be a 200,000-person chuck of an 18,000,000-person city that suits your needs than a 200,000-person chuck of a 300,000-person city.There's two problems with this.

First off you generally have to be a weekend warrior and spend more money to be with the same type of people.

Second you miss out on the overlaping of interests that you get in small towns.

It's much easier to find someone(one person) to both go camping with in a small town, or to watch your band, than you'll ever get in a big city.

Also it can be much better to find inclusion in a smaller place as well. Maybe your an immigrant and don't wanna resort to immigrant communities etc.

[freeweed]

I think from some of these comments, a lot of you are minorly obsessed with how others live their lives.

Who cares if someone wants to live in NYC and never go to downtown Manhattan? Is it really any of your concern? Maybe they're just plain stupid. Maybe they're trying to keep up with the Joneses.

Or maybe your derisive "I bet they only shop at the local Wal-Mart anyway" says more about you than it does them.

Speaking from experience, living in a city of 200,000 is nothing whatsoever like living in a community of 200,000 within a larger city of 2,000,000. If you don't see that, you're ... I'm not sure what the word is. And if people don't actually choose to take advantage of the extra ammenities provided by the bigger city - well, first of all I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. Who are these people you know that NEVER EVER leave their communities? Hermits? Even the biggest homebodies I know manage to take the kids out a few times a year to things that simply don't exist in a small town.

But even if they don't - why is this such a point of concern? So we can point out how hick they are when they go to Timmy's?

I don't think it's any great leap of intellect to realize that by and large, most people don't stray too far from home on a daily basis. Most people spend every waking hour working, or at home, or a few errands. Not exactly a surprise. There's a reason we still use the word "community" when describing regional areas. And there's a reason our modern urban landscape has evolved the way it has - with de-centralized commercial districts, so that people do not have to travel 20 miles just to get a quart of milk.

So I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is, other than to poke fun at others' lifestyles. Maybe I just don't know as many boring people as y'all - or maybe I just don't make it a point of concern for me to worry if my neighbour is fully utilizing his urban environment. :shrug:

[Wharn]

I spend a lot of my time in London North-Centre, which includes my house, my church, the University of Western Ontario, Downtown and the "main drag". It's got about 115,000 people, although since the vast majority of students live around here I suspect it has closer to 130,000 during the school year. To be honest though, I get around pretty much all of London because it's not a terribly huge city and because I have interests all over the place (sushi restaurant in the south, friends in the west, auto mechanic in the east).


And as far as living in a bubble, my point is almost the opposite from my perspective. Too many people seem to think they need to live in massive cities with millions of people in them to live a descent quality, or even the same quality of life.

Id far rather live in an area of 35k, if it meant having easier access to a variety of different natural environments.

One thing I've said before is that, if you were to move from a city of 2 million to a city of 200,000, 90% of your daily life would remain unchanged. It's just the other 10%: nightlife, attractions and other benefits of agglomeration that you start to miss. Your sphere of interaction includes activities that feed off and supply the rest of the metro area; they're not exactly "bubbles" and they can't be scaled to cities of the same size.

[Acajack]

I think from some of these comments, a lot of you are minorly obsessed with how others live their lives.

Who cares if someone wants to live in NYC and never go to downtown Manhattan? Is it really any of your concern? Maybe they're just plain stupid. Maybe they're trying to keep up with the Joneses.

Or maybe your derisive "I bet they only shop at the local Wal-Mart anyway" says more about you than it does them.

Speaking from experience, living in a city of 200,000 is nothing whatsoever like living in a community of 200,000 within a larger city of 2,000,000. If you don't see that, you're ... I'm not sure what the word is. And if people don't actually choose to take advantage of the extra ammenities provided by the bigger city - well, first of all I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. Who are these people you know that NEVER EVER leave their communities? Hermits? Even the biggest homebodies I know manage to take the kids out a few times a year to things that simply don't exist in a small town.

But even if they don't - why is this such a point of concern? So we can point out how hick they are when they go to Timmy's?

I don't think it's any great leap of intellect to realize that by and large, most people don't stray too far from home on a daily basis. Most people spend every waking hour working, or at home, or a few errands. Not exactly a surprise. There's a reason we still use the word "community" when describing regional areas. And there's a reason our modern urban landscape has evolved the way it has - with de-centralized commercial districts, so that people do not have to travel 20 miles just to get a quart of milk.

So I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is, other than to poke fun at others' lifestyles. Maybe I just don't know as many boring people as y'all - or maybe I just don't make it a point of concern for me to worry if my neighbour is fully utilizing his urban environment. :shrug:

Most of us who are commenting on here don't really care one way or the other, we're just answering the question that was posed and commenting on what others have said.

[Stryker]

Most of us who are commenting on here don't really care one way or the other, we're just answering the question that was posed and commenting on what others have said.

X2


Anyhow it's a interesting topic. Being overly concerned with population data, is a canadian fact of life.

[Stryker]

One thing I've said before is that, if you were to move from a city of 2 million to a city of 200,000, 90% of your daily life would remain unchanged. It's just the other 10%: nightlife, attractions and other benefits of agglomeration that you start to miss. Your sphere of interaction includes activities that feed off and supply the rest of the metro area; they're not exactly "bubbles" and they can't be scaled to cities of the same size.
Meh I think population density and layout of a region is far more important.

Just moving around the st john's metro is diverse as can be. You can live in average joe canada in center city, the 1800's downtown, the 1980's in mount pearl, , the middle ages in shea heights, or or I'm told the pinnacle of civilization in cbs. :notacrook:

[vid]

Downtown Thunder Bay has less buzz than the northern end of St. Anne's Road in Winnipeg. But which one has the taller buildings and most pedestrians?

Larger cities have an energy to them that you can feel even if you're nowhere near the centre of them. The presence of so many people and things puts a buzz in the air and it gets stronger when there are more people and more things.

[Andrewjm3D]

There's two problems with this.

First off you generally have to be a weekend warrior and spend more money to be with the same type of people.

Second you miss out on the overlaping of interests that you get in small towns.

It's much easier to find someone(one person) to both go camping with in a small town, or to watch your band, than you'll ever get in a big city.

Also it can be much better to find inclusion in a smaller place as well. Maybe your an immigrant and don't wanna resort to immigrant communities etc.


I lived in a town of 18,000 people for 5 years and I can tell you it's much easier to find people who share the same interests living in a city of 5,000,000.

[Stryker]

I lived in a town of 18,000 people for 5 years and I can tell you it's much easier to find people who share the same interests living in a city of 5,000,000.Ive spent 19 years living in a place of 5000, :rolleyes:

Of course one specific interest is much easier in a city.

But to find people that want to share more than just one of your interest is much harder in my opinion. People in small towns are more likely to latch onto something because there friends do it.

[vid]

Small towns probably have awesome underground sex clubs. :yes:

[freeweed]

People in small towns are more likely to latch onto something because there friends do it.

Or attack/ostracize their friends if it's "too different". And by that I mean something as petty as brand of beer.

Grew up in a mill town. No thanks. It was neat, added a lot to my personal development, and you couldn't pay me to live in one again, if I had any intention of a social life at all. If you "fit in" and happen to align nicely with the current vibe of all 1-200 or so peers close to your age, bully for you. Small towns are great when that happens.

I'd love to know what kind of underground sex club you think a town of a few thousand might have, vid. The 6 people who aren't trying to be like everyone else get together for weekly orgies. :haha:

[vid]

I would actually really like to see what Dryden would come up with for a sex club just because it is such a weird little city, it would probably be really cool (they're bored so they'll get into kinkier shit) but really scary (they're not very attractive and they're probably quite old).

I was making a joke, of course.

Small towns are only great if you're like everyone else. Unfortunately for me, I was born with a considerable disadvantage when it comes to being like everyone else. Until a bunch of gay people from Central Canada choose a small NWO village and move to it en-masse (I would suggest Nipigon, it's pretty) I wouldn't feel very comfortable in one. :frog: