Statistics Canada Reports II

[hipster duck]

Orlando as the centre of a 4.5M region, and just below Montreal in the rankings is pretty nuts.

Downtown Orlando.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Orlando as the centre of a 4.5M region, and just below Montreal in the rankings is pretty nuts.

Downtown Orlando.

Even downtown Montreal punches "below its weight" as a CBD (compared to Typical Anglo-Canada). The contrast would be even bigger otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Orlando#Definitions

Strangely, my area (~45 minute drive from downtown Orlando) is not even included in the largest definitions of the CSA, despite Orlando being the go-to city for us whenever Big City things are needed. If it were included in it then the population of the greater metro area would likely be >5M, though of course the downtown wouldn't have instantly taller buildings

[Nashe]

I read a stat lately that FL gains 1000 people EVERY DAY and most of those go to the central region. Orlando is one of (if not the) fastest growing cities in the US right now.

[lio45]

Yep, it's the fastest growing U.S. state (last time I checked). Miami is constrained and expensive, Orlando is cheaper and has land 360 degrees around it.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Maybe. There are definitely some leaving the HRM due to the pricing. last year my local bike shop closed because the owner moved to the south shore where he bought a house after not being able to afford one closed.

Btw, I'd love to meet up at some point when you arrive. Grab drinks, explore the changes around town or something. Maybe even head out on the bikes.

The future looks far more promising for Cape Breton than the doom and gloom surrounding it for so many decades. It's wonderful to see.

A meet-up would be great but realistically I'm not sure when I'll be able to. I'm only in Halifax 2 days, have to sort through a mountain of family heirlooms, being hosted by an old friend, and trying to fit in a tour for my traveling companion. If I had more time, I'd have said yes. Thank you very much for the overtures but it's unlikely I'll be able to hang out.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

The last population estimates from July 1, 2023 are interesting to look at, and I have been pleased to read all of this thead. What is even more interesting, though, is that after the (vast and expensive) consultation that were held a few years before last census (2021), which I have taken part of, Statistics Canada have decided to maintain its census metropolitan area delineation method, rather than update to a method that is becoming standard worldwide, the Functional Urban Areas (developed in collaboration with OECD and EU).

Basically, this method is simple : there are urban centres or "cities" which are defined as continuous built-up spaces. All the municipalities where most of the population live in that continuous built-up space are considered part of the "city" (in other words, the urban core). There are thresholds for size, which are based on the number of jobs, density and population of said cores. For example, the core of a functional urban area of greater importance consists of a conurbation of at least 50k population, 10k jobs and 1500ppl/sqkm. There are many sources online where you can find the detail for this method. There is then a threshold of 15% commuting between "cities". It a city sends more than 15% of its working population to another city, it is considered as a secondary "urban core" of this second city. You understand that there is no such thing as Hamilton, Oshawa, Abbotsford, Valleyfield, etc. with this method. Which is the interesting part.

The delineation method that is used in Canada for CMAs is pretty much unique worldwide, which limits comparisons when it comes to urban matters (public health, urban growth, urban sprawl, etc.) I am a researcher attached to the Urban development chair at UdeM. For most of our analysis, we use, for Canada, the data for Functional Urban Areas (Aires d'attraction des villes en français). We can therefore do some comparisons with european cities, for example. We work closely with Statistics Canada : they provide us with the granular data (ex.: census blocks, attributes, etc., which are all public by the way), and mostly, the number of jobs by census block.

Anyway, as we keep track of this data, I thought I'd share it with you, in order to add another perspective when it comes to comparing urban areas in Canada. I will be glad to answer your questions, even though demographics is not my field of study - I work in environmental geography, landscape and cultural heritage. I may have to ask colleagues before being able to come back to you.


So, according to the July 1st 2023 estimates that were released recently, Canada's main Functional Urban Areas are :

Position. Population. Name

1.   8 854 488   Toronto, ON
2.   4 925 560   Montréal, QC
3.   3 342 027   Vancouver, BC
4.   1 787 183   Calgary, AB
5.   1 745 823   Ottawa / Gatineau, ON/QC
6.   1 597 116   Edmonton, AB
7.   1 005 982   Québec, QC
8.     998 548   Winnipeg, MB
9.     683 300   Kitchener / Cambridge / Waterloo, ON
10.    682 528   London, ON
11.    552 728   Halifax, NS
12.    453 695   Victoria, BC
13.    441 736   St. Catharines / Niagara Falls, ON
14.    434 729   Windsor, ON
15.    371 640   Saskatoon, SK
16.    291 198   Sherbrooke, QC
17.    290 871   Regina, SK
18.    253 027   St. John's, NL
19.    246 789   Kelowna, BC
20.    240 197   Moncton, NB
21.    235 600   Kingston, ON
22.    214 141   Guelph, ON
23.    213 244   Trois-Rivières, QC
24.    204 585   Red Deer, AB
25.    192 723   Sudbury, ON
26.    182 072   Saguenay, QC
27.    171 685   Belleville / Trenton, ON
28.    154 156   Lethbridge, AB
29.    152 330   Fredericton, NB
30.    151 501   Peterborough, ON
31.    149 516   Nanaimo, BC
32.    146 943   Saint John, NB
33.    132 733   Kamloops, BC
34.    131 212   Thunder Bay, ON
35.    129 190   Drummondville, QC
36.    122 182   Granby, QC
37.    116 452   Sarnia, ON
38.    113 755   Charlottetown, PE
39.    113 238   Chatham-Kent, ON
40.    111 033   Sydney (Cape Breton), NS
41.    104 789   Joliette, QC
42.    101 444   North Bay, ON
43.    100 484   Saint-Hyacinthe, QC
44.    100 006   Grande Prairie, AB

A few remarks :

• There is a problem with the inconsistency of census subdivisions, espacially in BC and AB, where immense municipal districts create municipal enclaves within them. The urban areas in these 2 provinces, especially Alberta, tend to grow add no municipality for a few censuses, and then add like 10 or 15 in one census, because the sum of commuting worker for a whole municipal district and all of its enclaves combined reaches 15%. The same problem is experienced with the official Statistics Canada method.
• The Toronto FUA (functional urban area) comprises Hamilton, Oshawa, Barrie, Milton and Brantford, which are all secondary cores of category A. The statiscal "city" of Brantford sends 15,33% of its working population to Toronto and adjacent municipalities.
• In Vancouver, Abbotsford (A), Mission (C) and Chilliwack (B) are all considered as secondary cores.
• For Montreal, Saint-Jérôme (A), Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (B) and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (B) are also considered as secondary cores. Saint-Hyacinthe, Sorel and Joliette are not close to become secondary cores.
• Outside of the larger 3 agglomerations, we note that Shawinigan, QC is only at 1,01% of commuting to becoming a secondary core to Trois-Rivières. We consider them separate for now. It is also interesting that Louiseville, a C-category "city", is now at 13.7% commuting to Trois-Rivières. But outside of the suburban world, these stats tend to take time to increase, and honestly, we would prefer not to see it happen.
• Sainte-Marie, QC sends 13.21% of its working force to Québec, QC. Seeing the growth of this rate in the last 2 censuses, the "city" should join QC in 5 or 10 years.
• Airdrie, AB, is a secondary core to Calgary (46% of commuting)
• Guelph, ON, is closer to be added to the FUA of Toronto (8,7% of commuting) than it is to join KCW (4,0% of commuting). Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo is not even close to join Toronto either (3.64% of commuting); it is still fairly independent.
• Vernon, BC and Kelowna are not close to merge.
• Cobourg, ON will not likely be integrated soon to Toronto, but it is getting closer (11% commuting). So is Midland (11% also). Brighton could eventually be integrated to Belleville-Trenton, but is not close enough for now (10.5%).
• Alma, QC could eventually join Saguenay, but it will take some time (understand : decades) (11% commuting). If Sorel grows more, it could also eventually be added to Montreal, but recent trends suggest otherwise (10%). Same goes for Coaticook to Sherbrooke (10.3%), and Cowansville to Granby (10%).
• Shediac is already integrated into the Moncton FUA (44% commuting for the combined town and parish).

I hope it was informative. Don't forget : these are all just stats, and they mostly are useful to compare apples to apples. This is not a popularity contest or an indicator of greatness.

Wish StatsCan would switch to Functional Urban Areas as it's more standardized and it feels more accurate when describing our metro areas for comparison to other countries.
Did StatsCan give a reason why they didn't want to change?
Is there a site that keeps updating the FUA for Canadian cities??

[Nite]

Originally Posted by savevp

I'd argue the FUA still isn't quite as bloated as the American CSA system. FUA makes for good comparisons with Europe, but the CSA entails some pretty dodgy cartography to boost population numbers.

Mind, Americans have a capacity to drive much further on a regular basis than anyone else would think normal. And with so much quasi-rural sprawl, the CSA's tendencies to merge enormous regions aren't quite so inconceivable.

Still, I don't think the American system is comparable to anything we/Europe are using. Statscan's method has become irrelevant for the largest cities so FUA is not a bad substitute, though probably a bit inflationary. Comparisons to CSA's are still somewhat ludicrous.

We need someone to calculate the FUA for the US as well then for an accurate comparison.
Edit: looks like the OECD has the FUA all members up to 2021 (2020 seems to be the most complete year however) which you can download as well.

https://regions-cities-atlas.oecd.org/FUA/x/x/T_T/2020

[rdaner]

If CSAs aren’t a good measure for comparingUS cities internationally, what is? Thanks!

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

Just to set the record straight : it is a method used by a research chair in Canada in order to compare canadian urban agglomerations with UK and France mostly, because CAs and CMAs are not a methodological frame that allows it. It is not more than that.

Sorry for the delay of my responses, but I am in France right now (décalage!)

I'll try to answer all of the questions, but feel free to DM me also, if needed.

1. These are not my estimates. These are based on Statistics Canada estimates.

2. Functional urban areas or Aires d'attraction des villes are concepts from a methodology that has been developed by the OECD with a European union partnership. It was meant to produce more accurate portraits of the urban phenomenon worldwide and to smooth out the various methodologies used by the states. I asked my colleague yesterday and they have refered me to this document (click) if you want to know more about the process to delineate these areas. We used to use the INSEE method from France, but since France has switched to the OECD method, we followed.

There is a european guideline to apply the method, you can find all the details here (click).

3. In Functional urban areas, there is the term "functional", which means that this method aims to highlight the urban systems. The main indicator of this method is urban continuity. The secondary indicator is commuting. The threshold was put at 15%. There was work involved to determine this percentage and its pertinence, but I am not an expert on the matter.

4. For Canada, it worked grosso modo this way:

A. Determination of continuous urban areas, which means continuous urban fabric, industrial, commercial, residential or other.
-In order to achieve that, the census blocks data from Statistics Canada has been transformed into a 1kmx1km grid for the whole country. Each square kilometer is attributed a value of population density. An urban cluster of caterogory A (the most important) is made of at least 50k people and 1500 ppl/sqkm of average density. I can send you the grid in shapefile if you are interested. I have asked and it is not under any confidentiality clause.
-When the clusters of category A are identified, we determine what municipalities are majorly part of it, meaning that every municipality where 50% of the population lives in said cluster is therefore included in the "city" or "urban" core. For example, Hamilton is well integrated in the "Toronto-Hamilton" urban core.

B. Determination of the independance of the clusters.
-We first determine how many jobs are inside of every cluster. Statistics Canada has provided us more granular info (the chair paid for it) so we have data about the number of jobs in every canadian census block.
-We then determine, on the base of municipalities (or group of municipalities if there is more than 1 in the "city" or "urban core") the proportion of commuters to every other category A "cities". When cities exchange more than 15% of their workforce, the smaller city is integrated into the bigger as a secondary core.
-Once we know which are the main and secondary cores, we calculate the commuting % from every other municipality to a "city". They are integrated to the agglomeration as a "commuting crown" or "shed" depending on the terminology.

C. Same process, with category B, C and D "cities".
- Category B : 1500 ppl/sqkm, minimal population of the cluster at 10k (slightly adjusted to reflect canadian geography better)
- Category C : 300 ppl/sqkm, minimal population of the cluster at 5k
- Category D : 300 ppl/sqkm, reaches the minimal population of 5k, but this cluster, even though being the main one in the municipality, does not represent 50% of municipal population. This category has been adjusted to reflect canadian geography, some places such as Sydney NS or Gaspé QC, for example, are in the centre of a large muncipality, but the population proportion of the core would never reach 50%.
- They are calculated successively, independently, so that a regular municipality that is attracted to a Category A "city" cannot be part of a "category B" agglomeration.

So basically that is the method.
Data is revised every census for commuting proportions. Municipalities are added or removed of a region according to those numbers.
The population used for every FUA is based on Statistics Canada annal estimates.

5. Hamilton is a part of Toronto's continuous urban fabric, therefore it is part of Toronto's urban core, or "city" as of the british denomination. Remember : a "city" is the extent of its urban fabric. I made a mistake writing that Hamilton was a secondary core in my original post. My colleague pointed out that there is still a minor gap between Oshawa and Toronto and therefore is identified as a secondary core because of commuting.

6. Cornwall is not part of Montreal. It is its own category B FUA, with a population of 80 278, and basically no link with Montreal, and thin ones (3 to 4%) with Ottawa-Gatineau.

7. To answer you directly, @GreaterMontréal, l'AAV de Montréal extends from Frelighsburg to Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. It takes on Lachute also. The problem with Montreal, is that it is not able to reach its satellite cities in the north east : Sorel-Tracy, Saint-Hyacinthe are still fairly independant, while Joliette gets closer to being integrated to Montreal, but is still not close enough.

8. There was a question about Regina and Saksatoon. Moose Jaw is still its own independant category B area, with a pop of 40,965. Both agglomerations (Sask/Reg) integrate many rural townships and towns and are far more extended than their respective CMAs.

8. The problem with forums in general is that some people seem to give more meaning to things than they really have. It is not "my" method. It is not "my" data. It is only a way that researchers have, in certain fields, in order to compare cities with other cities. For example, when you see that Paris has 13M people, or that Nantes is a 1M city, you can compare Montréal (5M) or Québec (1M) with them in order to get a better understanding of scale. The most incoherent matter with the official Statistics Canada method, is that it does not allow to consider already contiguous cities as one. This is because the canadian method is "statistical" and "political" rather than geography-based.The fact that Toronto is still considered as a 6M agglomeration by the 2021 census does not reflect reality.

For stats nerds, enjoy!
And for the others, don't get tormented.

This is really interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Not to get all tormented, but for a tool developed to enable comparison of international urban areas, FUA is really, really, really bad for comparing international urban areas.

I don't think I understood this until you shared this explanation. I've tended to write off FUA numbers because they've tended to diverge wildly from nationally generated numbers and common sense. Looking at Germany, I couldn't understand how something like Metropolitan Stuttgart, a region of over 5 million people, could end up being an FUA of something like 2.4 million.

I see now that "urban continuity" biases FUAs toward sprawlier, American-style cities.

Using Stuttgart as an example: this is a metro scattered across hundreds of villages, dispersed through the Schwarzwald mountains. There is no urban continuity. Thus, you end up with Sindlingen and Böblingen, which despite being 12 km from the centre of Stuttgart and connected to the Stuttgart Sbahn system, are separated from Stuttgart city limits by a mountain ridge and are themselves home to massive Mercedez-Benz factories, and I'd guess isolated from Stuttgart's FUA.

Based on the Mercedez factories, I doubt 15 % of Sindlingern or Böblingern commute into Stuttgart. If anything, more commuters probably travel the other way. But it would be an accomplishment for a small city to claim 15 % of workers from a larger city. And carving Sindlingen and Böblingen off of the Stuttgart FUA also carves off the many villages and towns that do send commuters to those factories.

The ultimate insanity of the FUA, in this case, is that the Mercedez factories only exist in Sindlingen and Böblingen because the Mercedez HQ is next door in Stuttgart and they're supported by all the infrastructure available in a large metro.

Now, Metropolitan Stuttgart may have exceptional terrain, but it's fairly typical of European metro regions, where farmland is valuable and populations dispersed across well-connected towns and villages. Just on the other side of the Schwarzwald, I'd guess that the Rhine-Neckar metropolitan region loses Heidelberg thanks to some fields and strong local employment at the university, despite that university being an essential part of the metropolitan region's economy and society. To the north, Metropolitan Frankfurt probably loses the heavily industrial Darmstadt (the ever-charming Intestine City, literally) and its satellites. And just beyond that, the 8.7 million-strong Rhineland is whittled down into a handful of pokey FUAs and orphaned towns, the shared infrastructure and integrated economies that support them all be damned.

To look at one of the examples you provided above, I don't think it would be a reach to include Saint-Nazaire in metro Nantes--it's the de facto port of Nantes in the same way that Bremerhaven is the port of Bremen. The difference is that Bremen owns Bremerhaven as an exclave. But I have little doubt that Bremerhaven is somehow not part of Bremen's FUA, simply because no sprawl touches and there's strong local employment in each. But first, who cares if the sprawl doesn't touch? There are other ways to connect urban areas. And second, commuter traffic isn't directly analogous to economic integration. If Bremen/Nantes and Bremerhaven/Saint-Nazaire couldn't function without each other, they ought to be functional urban areas.

Anyhow, I'm aware that this is just a way to look at things. I think it's insane that it's supposed to be an international standard, endorsed by the OECD (and to what end?), but it's more similar to the EIU's liveability index than a picture of reality. In the North American context, at least, the FUA is a nice answer to the wild MSA numbers produced in the US. But I'll continue to disregard FUA numbers for cities elsewhere.

Thanks again for the interesting post!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yep, it's the fastest growing U.S. state (last time I checked). Miami is constrained and expensive, Orlando is cheaper and has land 360 degrees around it.

I move in the wrong circles. Nobody I know is willing to even visit the USofA these days, let alone move there (I've lived there and would do so again). But living full-time in Florida? It would be like living in hot soup all summer long. Plus brain death (Sarasota excepted).

[craner]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Orlando as the centre of a 4.5M region, and just below Montreal in the rankings is pretty nuts.

Downtown Orlando.

Yeah - and Portland at 3.3M and SLC at 3M seem crazy too.

[craner]

Emigration from Canada to the U.S. hits a 10-year high as tens of thousands head south

http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-moving-to-the-us-hits-10-year-high-1.7218479

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yep, it's the fastest growing U.S. state (last time I checked). Miami is constrained and expensive, Orlando is cheaper and has land 360 degrees around it.

Texas must be very close
In absolute numbers, Texas is growing faster.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by craner

Emigration from Canada to the U.S. hits a 10-year high as tens of thousands head south

http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-moving-to-the-us-hits-10-year-high-1.7218479

It's called the JT effect.

People fleeing to a jurisdiction that values inspiration, self motivation and personal growth and enterprise rather than a country that discourages such values, and views free enterprise and invention as nothing more than a source of taxation.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Texas must be very close
In absolute numbers, Texas is growing faster.

When I went to Dallas a year ago it was overwhelming how new everything looked. Definitely a post-war city.

Difference is that's mostly from internal migration, whereas GTA's growth is all from immigration.

On a side note: I was confused why immigrants keep settling in the GTA given the outrageous prices, but then when I was interviewing candidates for a role at our organization I learned that for one of the roles there just aren't that many opportunities outside the GTA, but here there are plenty. That must be true for a lot of professions, hence why people keep comong here despite the cost.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by craner

Yeah - and Portland at 3.3M and SLC at 3M seem crazy too.

Salt Lake will have a new NHL team pretty soon.
Canadians on the forum balked when I said SLC was a good fit for NHL

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_NHL...0league's%202024%E2%80%9325%20season.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Build.It

When I went to Dallas a year ago it was overwhelming how new everything looked. Definitely a post-war city.

Difference is that's mostly from internal migration, whereas GTA's growth is all from immigration.

On a side note: I was confused why immigrants keep settling in the GTA given the outrageous prices, but then when I was interviewing candidates for a role at our organization I learned that for one of the roles there just aren't that many opportunities outside the GTA, but here there are plenty. That must be true for a lot of professions, hence why people keep comong here despite the cost.

The Toronto region is very large (10+ million people) and growing rapidly, so new jobs are constantly being created and because of it size it has a lot of specialized jobs you wouldn't find anywhere else in Canada.

All around the world large cities are where wealth, innovation and prosperity is generated, it's not in rural area, small towns or small cities. It's because large cities draw in all the ingredient needed to generate wealth and prosperity, namely talented, ambitious young people and money looking to make more money.

[craner]

Airdrie just north of Calgary is expected to hit 100,000 in 2028.
When I was a kid growing up in the ‘70s it was 2000 people and a bit of a drive in the country to get there.
They say it will likely grow to be Alberta’s third largest city.

This got me wondering - is Surrey more populous than Vancouver now ?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nite

All around the world large cities are where wealth, innovation and prosperity is generated, it's not in rural area, small towns or small cities. It's because large cities draw in all the ingredient needed to generate wealth and prosperity, namely talented, ambitious young people and money looking to make more money.

Except that it’s the opposite with Toronto nowadays: talented, ambitious young people move away, while the only reason the population isn’t going down is the influx of desperate Indentured Servants (who can tolerate the low wages and poor living conditions.)

Originally Posted by craner

Emigration from Canada to the U.S. hits a 10-year high as tens of thousands head south

http://https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-moving-to-the-us-hits-10-year-high-1.7218479

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by lio45

Except that it’s the opposite with Toronto nowadays: talented, ambitious young people move away, while the only reason the population isn’t going down is the influx of desperate Indentured Servants (who can tolerate the low wages and poor living conditions.)

Agreed. Toronto is not a city where young people can easily get ahead anymore. My fiancée and I, both in our late 20s, and work jobs that would not pay more working in the GTA vs anywhere else, so living in a smaller city is a no-brainer for us since the cost of living is drastically lower and allows us to save and get ahead. We are even at a point where home ownership is possible within the next year, which would still be very far out of reach if we lived in the GTA.

The GTA is not for young people anymore. It might have been prior to the pandemic, but it definitely isn’t what it used to be. Cost of living has ruined so many things for so many people. I also have coworkers who can attest to the drastic lifestyle changes that come with leaving the GTA. A 35-year old drafter at my office was living in a rooming house in Brampton for a few years until she switched from one of our GTA offices to our office here in London. She makes the same amount of money but can now afford to rent her own place and finally start saving. Crazy differences.