Halifax Population & Growth

[portapetey]

CBC: Halifax 5-year strategy aims to add 50,000 people to city

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-5-year-strategy-population-increase-1.3521125

[someone123]

One interesting aspect of the original report is the idea that the whole province's fortunes are tied to the city. Traditionally there's been a perception in rural NS that the city's growth comes at the expense of the rest of the province but that's not true. The city attracts people from out of province and is based on different industries. Promoting urban growth is the only plausible strategy NS could use at this point to remain a reasonably healthy province that can maintain decent service and taxation levels for everyone.

[fenwick16]

Based on my calculations that is a 2.3% annual growth rate (compounded yearly). Currently Halifax is growing at about a 1.4% rate based on Statistics Canada. I think it is doable with progressive minded people in local politics and business but it will take a strong economy to retain immigrants.

Maybe encouraging rural Nova Scotians to move to the Halifax area instead of other cities in Canada will have to be a big part of the plan.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Maybe encouraging rural Nova Scotians to move to the Halifax area instead of other cities in Canada will have to be a big part of the plan.

Yes, further aggrandizement of the Capital at the expense of the "Districts".

I think Cape Breton would make a fine "District 12"

The next step in the grand plan will be institution of the "Hunger Games".

I joke of course, but there is some irony here........

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Based on my calculations that is a 2.3% annual growth rate (compounded yearly). Currently Halifax is growing at about a 1.4% rate based on Statistics Canada. I think it is doable with progressive minded people in local politics and business but it will take a strong economy to retain immigrants.

I hope you used that term in its original sense and not in the way it has been co-opted by the political left.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Based on my calculations that is a 2.3% annual growth rate (compounded yearly). Currently Halifax is growing at about a 1.4% rate based on Statistics Canada. I think it is doable with progressive minded people in local politics and business but it will take a strong economy to retain immigrants.

Maybe encouraging rural Nova Scotians to move to the Halifax area instead of other cities in Canada will have to be a big part of the plan.

Rural NS has already been emptied. It's grim out there compared with the seventies and eighties.

[Drybrain]

I was curious too and did a similar calculation. Yeah, it would be a 2.3-2.4% annual growth rate.

It's great to see some unabashed ambition on this front, but it does seem, if anything, over-ambitous. That kind of growth rate would make us the second- or third-fastest growing city in the country, tied with Calgary and Edmonton. (The Alberta cities were both well over three percent annually the previous year, but, you know, oil.)

And more than that, to achieve 50,000 people in five years, we'd have to start growing at that pace right now. I don't really see how it's doable, barring some miracle. But maybe it's a shoot-for-the-stars strategy, the idea being that we may not get there, but we'll still do pretty well.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Rural NS has already been emptied. It's grim out there compared with the seventies and eighties.

I dunno, the intraprovincial migration figures for Halifax suggest that the emptying is still ongoing, and in fact slightly increased in recent years.

[icetea93]

Beyond the 50,000 in the next 5 years, the city plans on bringing the population up to 550,000 in the next 15 years. That's +~120,000 (+~28%) in 15 years

Here's the Chronicle Hearld article about it:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/...to-grow-to-550000-people-within-15-years

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But maybe it's a shoot-for-the-stars strategy, the idea being that we may not get there, but we'll still do pretty well.

I am 100% fine with a shoot for the stars mentality, as that has been sorely lacking in this province. Time to actually start being ambitious and pushing to execute "shoot for the star" plans, rather than settling for a status quo mediocrity that in real terms means a slow but steady economic death!

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by beyeas

I am 100% fine with a shoot for the stars mentality, as that has been sorely lacking in this province. Time to actually start being ambitious and pushing to execute "shoot for the star" plans, rather than settling for a status quo mediocrity that in real terms means a slow but steady economic death!

Agreed! we may not get there but why not shoot for it!!

Maybe we will surpass it (:

[scryer]

Shoot for the moon and you may land on a star

Now it would be very helpful (to Canada in general, but particularly the Maritimes) if we had an ambitious Prime Minister that wanted to open up a stronger trade network/investments with Europe, the Caribbean, eastern countries of South America, and western countries of Africa. I think that could catalyze things in all of the Maritime provinces. That way, Canada can get gangbanged on both sides of the country by several different countries with strong economic trade agreements .

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by icetea93

Beyond the 50,000 in the next 5 years, the city plans on bringing the population up to 550,000 in the next 15 years. That's +~120,000 (+~28%) in 15 years

Here's the Chronicle Hearld article about it:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/...to-grow-to-550000-people-within-15-years

The regional municipality.

The "city" (contiguous urban/suburban population centre) hasn't much more than 300,000 or so people in it. https://goo.gl/kyKGDf

If we want the "city" to have 550K, we're talking about nearly doubling it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I understand that continual population growth is good for the economy and all that, but is there an end point for it, an optimal population target that we should aim for and then try to stabilize?

Just thinking long term here, but for things like the environment, food and natural resource supplies, etc. there will be an end point. Some say that we have already passed it globally.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but it just seems to be a given that there is always a push to increase population, like it's some kind of catch phrase in the media/political world, and then in the same breath there's concern about global warming, environment, endangered-species list, etc.

[Haliguy]

Originally Posted by portapetey

The regional municipality.

The "city" (contiguous urban/suburban population centre) hasn't much more than 300,000 or so people in it. https://goo.gl/kyKGDf

If we want the "city" to have 550K, we're talking about nearly doubling it.

Not sure I agree with that there isn't 117,000 people outside that area within HRM.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I understand that continual population growth is good for the economy and all that, but is there an end point for it, an optimal population target that we should aim for and then try to stabilize?

Just thinking long term here, but for things like the environment, food and natural resource supplies, etc. there will be an end point. Some say that we have already passed it globally.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but it just seems to be a given that there is always a push to increase population, like it's some kind of catch phrase in the media/political world, and then in the same breath there's concern about global warming, environment, endangered-species list, etc.

A growing population is the holy grail for governments and politicians. That means more economic activity and development which means more taxes which means more money for them to spend. It is no different than a business that wants to grow sales to increase profits. That's a lot more fun than being in a stagnant or declining market and having to make tough decisions, downsizing, letting people go, closing locations, etc.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I understand that continual population growth is good for the economy and all that, but is there an end point for it, an optimal population target that we should aim for and then try to stabilize?

Just thinking long term here, but for things like the environment, food and natural resource supplies, etc. there will be an end point. Some say that we have already passed it globally.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but it just seems to be a given that there is always a push to increase population, like it's some kind of catch phrase in the media/political world, and then in the same breath there's concern about global warming, environment, endangered-species list, etc.

I think most of the growth will have to be through immigration versus natural growth since I think the NS death rate currently matches the birth rate. Most worldwide natural growth is taking place in poorer underdeveloped countries.

If it is just a redistribution of people then it shouldn't affect world resources.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by Haliguy

Not sure I agree with that there isn't 117,000 people outside that area within HRM.

It's a bit of a long and painful process, but you can look up the census tracts and their populations for Halifax-Dartmouth-Bedford-Sackville and surrounds, versus the more rural ones.

Here's a map: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...MA-CA-CT_RMR-AR-SR/2011-92146-205-00.pdf

Start looking up the populations of the rural tracts. They add up quickly...I wish I could find a summary table that lists the populations of all, but this quick table shows the population centre versus rural:

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recens...m?LANG=Eng&T=209&CMA=205&S=51&O=A&RPP=25

We could probably quibble about whether a few of the tracts are rural versus part of the suburbs...but my argument stands. I've long seen that many people think that the "city" we live in is a lot bigger than it is, and they underestimate just how much of the population we claim actually lives out in the rural areas. I blame amalgamation. :-)

And I think this feeds the negativity sometimes, because we end up comparing ourselves to much bigger cities. On the other hand, it gives us more of a sense of striving and hustle, maybe?

I find looking at satellite images can be instructional too (such a geek.) We're certain not the only city that suffers from this - London ON has a similar tiny urban/suburban centre relative to a vast nearly-empty "metro". I've long felt London is Halifax's best comparison in many ways.

[Drybrain]

I'm curious as to how much of "Hakifax" is rural population (certainly there are parts of HRM that are not significant parts of the city's commuter shed, but functionally independent towns or villages).

Noentheless, HRM is all we have as far as a legal/political/jurisdictional body, so from now on I assume when people say "the city" that's what they mean.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I think most of the growth will have to be through immigration versus natural growth since I think the NS death rate currently matches the birth rate. Most worldwide natural growth is taking place in poorer underdeveloped countries.

If it is just a redistribution of people then it shouldn't affect world resources.

In NS it's true, but I don't think the world's population is just redistributing. Just did a google search and came upon this interesting site:

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

The graph on the page is really eye-opening, as is the following text:

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.

Hopefully how we use our world's resources will offset the continuing population growth for a while, but the way we source food is not looking very promising for the future, IMHO.