What Small Canadian Cities Do You Want To See As Bigger Centres

[caltrane74]

1. Hamilton
2. London
3. Kitchener/Waterloo
4. St. Catherines/Niagara Falls
5. Windsor
6. Churchill MB

[Jimby]

Sherbrooke
Lethbridge
Kamloops
Nanaimo
Kingston

[Boreal]

If I want to put my provincial glasses on, then I'd vote for Gillam, MB.

Nationally, Saint John, NB.

[mike474]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

only polemicists (hi, mark steyn) extrapolate demographic data more than a few years into the future.

beware Eurabia!!!

[Chadillaccc]

Prince Rupert and Prince George, because we need far more diversification on our West Coast.

Yellowknife, because we need a larger human presence in the far north.

Iqaluit, for the same reason ^^^

Churchill, because we need a large deepwater seaport on the arctic ocean[Hudson Bay] to facilitate the massive upswing in Arctic trade.

and Nanisivik [only to about 10 000 people] to display to the world that Canadians do live in and love our arctic. Also, Nanisivik is the proposed site of the Arctic military deep water seaport. So having a consistent population there would show even further that we mean business when it comes to protecting our territory.

[Ayreonaut]

Prince Rupert probably would be a lot bigger if it didn't rain 400+ days a year. Beautiful area, dreadful climate.

[Razor]

What would these cities resemble if they got big?...I'm trying to picture Yellow Knife at 100'000 people..Quebec City and Kingston would be interesting..Both are older cities to begin with...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

only polemicists (hi, mark steyn) extrapolate demographic data more than a few years into the future.

What about demographers? Or are they all polemicists (conceivable but I'm not sure it's so).

(And hi to you, too! Mark sends greetings.)

[Simpseatles]

I would only want more population growth in London (and most Canadian cities for that matter) if it is achieved through a more manageable, urban, and well thought out way. Every time I drive around the GTA, I am sickened by the disgusting sprawl that surrounds a wonderful city. On one hand I get upset that London, and other centres in Southern Ontario lose out to the GTA for population growth, but on the other hand, I am so grateful that I don't have to live in that mess, and that London isn't growing so extraordinarily fast. We still have crappy new subdivisions, but they are being built much slower.

I'm a little surprised by the ammount of people here who want so many cities to gain huge ammounts of population. Where are most of these people going to live? Urban sprawl is still the main form of growth in Canadian cities, and we all know the opinions on this website.

I'm not saying you shouldn't fantasize, but I'm just curious about the practicality of such immense growth.

[MolsonExport]

roxboro, qc

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Prince Rupert and Prince George, because we need far more diversification on our West Coast.

Yellowknife, because we need a larger human presence in the far north.

Iqaluit, for the same reason ^^^

Churchill, because we need a large deepwater seaport on the arctic ocean[Hudson Bay] to facilitate the massive upswing in Arctic trade.

and Nanisivik [only to about 10 000 people] to display to the world that Canadians do live in and love our arctic. Also, Nanisivik is the proposed site of the Arctic military deep water seaport. So having a consistent population there would show even further that we mean business when it comes to protecting our territory.

I think Alert would be a better fit.

[ue]

Yellowknife - I'd love to see 100-150,000 people here. I could definitely see it as global warming continues.

Whitehorse - 40,000 would be nice.

Iqaluit - 30,000 would be nice.

Nanaimo - I could definitely see 250,000 people here as an alternative to Victoria on the Island.

Victoria - 600-700,000

Kelowna - 500,000

Kamloops - 400,000

Lethbridge - 250-270,000

Saskatoon - 750,000

Winnipeg - 1,500,000-1,900,000 I think would be awesome for the 'Peg. It has the bones with it's prewar urban fabric that would be awesome to enhance with new highrises, extensive rail, and suburban TODs galore.

Thunder Bay - 200,000

Kitchener-Waterloo - 1,000,000

Hamilton - 1,400,000

Kingston - 300,000

Quebec City - 1,500,000-1,700,000

Charlottetown - 60,000

Halifax - 1,000,000

St. John's - 400-450,000

[armorand93]

Winnipeg 2 million? That means 2400 buses! LOL

I'd like to see Gimli and Brandon become larger, preferably Gimli. Few mid-rise hotels and some more suburban development btwn the Industrial Park/Highway 8 and the town itself. Lets say... 30,000 people?

[Dalreg]

Saskatoon and Regina at 500,000+ each would be good. Saskatchewan could do with Prince Albert at 150,000 to 200,000 as well. The gateway to the Northern resource area of the province. Otherwise Yorkton, Swift Current, North Battleford, etc would be nice to hit 50,000 a piece.

[MolsonExport]

Nanaimo-Comox? Those cities are hardly adjacent to one another.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

I think Alert would be a better fit.

Alert would be terrible! At least Nanivisk and Iqaluit are on the coast of a liquid water ocean. Alert is constantly encased in ice, completely uninhabitable for a population over a few dozen.

[Ayreonaut]

Nanaimo-Parksville maybe. And everything in between Nanaimo and Vic is growing a lot, pretty constant settlement along that route (including my least favourite place in BC - Duncan).

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by Simpseatles

I would only want more population growth in London (and most Canadian cities for that matter) if it is achieved through a more manageable, urban, and well thought out way. Every time I drive around the GTA, I am sickened by the disgusting sprawl that surrounds a wonderful city. On one hand I get upset that London, and other centres in Southern Ontario lose out to the GTA for population growth, but on the other hand, I am so grateful that I don't have to live in that mess, and that London isn't growing so extraordinarily fast. We still have crappy new subdivisions, but they are being built much slower.

I'm a little surprised by the ammount of people here who want so many cities to gain huge ammounts of population. Where are most of these people going to live? Urban sprawl is still the main form of growth in Canadian cities, and we all know the opinions on this website.

I'm not saying you shouldn't fantasize, but I'm just curious about the practicality of such immense growth.

I was just reading back through your comments and that's a good point about sprawl. For me, Halifax has one of the greatest untapped potentials of many cities for absorbing a huge amount of growth without the need to sprawl out.

Earlier in the thread (or maybe another thread) someone pointed out that Halifax's growth was stiffled in the late 1800's/early 1900's because of the desire to expand west - a comment which I agree with. Halifax could've been the Vancouver of the east by now, but I'm still okay with how its grown. It's been slow and steady growth and now on the edge of something very interest if this naval ship contract goes to the Halifax shipyard.

Personally, the Regional Core (which is all of Peninsula Halifax and all of Dartmouth inside the circumfrential highway) has the potential to grow on an order of magnatude probably 3 to 6 times, because of all the potential land area I see. Taking a queue from Toronto's midrise building policy and thinking about transportation for people versus cars, you could easily build a couple good streetcar lines all over the regional core and bump up the population. The Agricola area, Quinpool and many others in Dartmouth are all prime spots to just build up the density without the need for sprawl. Add to this a better, more precise regional plan that sets out higher density new communities and I think you have the makes of a bigger city, without all the sprawl.

Keep in mind the key will be the market and the ability for people to make easy choices. If the choice is between an urban condo at 500k and a house in the burbs at 300k, many would choose the later. So it won't be about building lots of multi-residential, it will be about building it in an affordable way and making sure communities are all inclusive to everyone.

[someone123]

Keep in mind the key will be the market and the ability for people to make easy choices. If the choice is between an urban condo at 500k and a house in the burbs at 300k, many would choose the later. So it won't be about building lots of multi-residential, it will be about building it in an affordable way and making sure communities are all inclusive to everyone.

This is the main reason why obstructionism is so bad. When you have NIMBYs adding years of appeals to every new development and effectively eliminating most of the land supply in the core prices get driven up considerably and the suburbs become the more affordable option. The end result is that large numbers of people end up being pushed into less desirable, less efficient, and less environmentally sound developments because of comparatively small special interest groups.

The cities that continue to sprawl are going to be at a disadvantage as gas and municipal servicing costs go up and up. They just won't be attractive places to live and they will tank because skilled workers are mobile -- they will just pick up and find a good place to live. The good places to live will have lots of amenities close by and great transit options.

Halifax is in a relatively good position because it has a big urban core with lots of infill opportunity. As you say areas like the Peninsula would be easy to serve with streetcars/LRT. It is still an open question whether we'll see more emphasis on building a great core with a great supporting transportation system or whether the effort will instead be disproportionately diverted toward unsustainable suburban development as it has been in the past.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Andy6

What about demographers? Or are they all polemicists (conceivable but I'm not sure it's so).

(And hi to you, too! Mark sends greetings.)

my point was that the essential underpinnings of demographic projections can change very rapidly. mark's error is parading around saying things like "germany won't exist in 50 years" based on current birth rates and immigration policies; you can't trace those lines to the point of extinction. people* behave erratically and with great force when backed into a corner.

(*germans, for instance).