[nito]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Future growth prospects (2020 onward) based on current trend lines (2016-2020) would be far more relevant and make more sense. What happened 1945-2015 isn't pertinent.

From a statistical perspective if you’re aiming for long-term projections, it is peculiar to focus on a limited sample size, more so when said data points are from a short period of time, because you increase the chance for distortion from outliers. I am not even disputing the recent growth figures for Canada, more that they are outliers in numeral and percentage terms (whether looking at post-WWII, since 2001, or since 2011) which distort long-term projections that you are attempting to make. That you dismiss several decades of evidence because it does not fit your thinking is short-sighted and the very definition of bias.

Originally Posted by Mister F

Yes, the federal and provincial governments have been pretty bad at building infrastructure, especially non-automobile infrastructure. That's been slowly changing in the last two decades but we have a long way to go.

It is an interesting dilemma; fail to keep up with population growth, agglomeration and the demands of a modern society and you have the seeds for a mobility crunch which has ramifications for society and the economy. Outside of the GO Transit upgrade, it is surprising that there aren’t more substantial plans to open several new heavy rail lines across the GTA; most work seems to be focused on light-rail projects like Eglinton.

I’ve been pulling together a thread for HS2 - which is now under construction in the UK - and one of the things that put the project into context is that if HS2 followed GO Transit’s Lakeshore West line, based on journey times, Birmingham would be where Oakville is, and Manchester where Burlington is.

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is nonsense. The UK had growing population entirely due to increased immigration.

This is incorrect. Over the past decade net international migration has accounted for 56% of overall population growth.

Originally Posted by Crawford

London has always been the global center for finance, which is very different than saying it's the most important city for finance, which it hasn't been for at least 80 years.

The title seems to flip between the two year-on-year, with each having dominance in various markets. New York’s dominance of the mature domestic US market has undoubtedly served it well in previous decades, but there has been a marked shift eastward globally. New York’s limited connectivity and service offering to international developed and high-growth emerging markets leaves it a disadvantage. But I digress, this is not a thread about New York.

Originally Posted by The North One

It's obvious London greatly benefited from the EU. But now that Brexit is official and the UK is ruled by right wing fascists who are very anti-immigration it seems these great two decades for London is coming to a screeching halt.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

For London to prosper, the EU was certainly an important factor, but London also benefited immensely from its role as the preferred domicile for the elites of former parts of the British Empire. I don't see this changing.
without Russian and Gulf Arab money London would be a very different place today.