Winnipeg CMA in 5 years (2026)

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Edmonton population: 1.1M
Edmonton municipal revenues: $3.68B

Winnipeg population: 841k
Winnipeg municipal revenues: $2.17B

How do you explain Regina and Saskatoon having better infrastructure than Winnipeg, considering they only have 1/3 the population?

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Luisito

I wouldn't include Brampton with those other cities as it is a suburb of Toronto, it is part of the GTA. The other cities are not as big as Winnipeg, and Kitchener has an excellent LRT system. Not really comparable IMO.

Metro Kitchener has the same population Winnipeg did in the mid 1980's (620,000). It's sad to see that Winnipeg never built an LRT when they had the chance in the 70s

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Metro Kitchener has the same population Winnipeg did in the mid 1980's (620,000). It's sad to see that Winnipeg never built an LRT when they had the chance in the 70s

We have terrible leadership. Everyone in local politics does nothing but argue about what should be done then complains when things are way more expensive then kills projects because they’re out of our price range now. Decisiveness, especially on infrastructure has to be a top priority. We have terrible local leaders. Aside from a few mayors and premiers with an ounce of foresight (a la Duff Roblin ) we really have not had anyone who has had the ambition or presence of mind to do anything remotely useful in terms of infrastructure…. Meanwhile our peers continue to outpace us while we sit there scratching our heads trying to come up with « made in Manitoba solutions » which frequently don’t work very well, are more expensive than other proven alternatives, and form the topic of decades of debate on common sense….. sorry, rant over

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

How do you explain Regina and Saskatoon having better infrastructure than Winnipeg, considering they only have 1/3 the population?

Using Borkbork's numbers and adding Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon, ranked by funds available per citizen.

Calgary population: 1.3M
Calgary municipal revenues: $4.57B
Per Capita = $3515

Saskatoon population: 273k
Regina municipal revenues: $945M
Per Capita = $3462

Edmonton population: 1.1M
Edmonton municipal revenues: $3.68B
Per Capita = $3345

Winnipeg population: 841k
Winnipeg municipal revenues: $2.17B
Per Capita = $2580

Regina population: 229k
Regina municipal revenues: $538M
Per Capita = $2349


I think this might help further demonstrate that Winnipeg has a revenue problem, not (as much) of an expenditure problem. Looking at those five cities and ranking them by overall impression across the country would probably have a ranking chart that matches the list above.

Winnipeg talks about playing the big city game but has a budget to spend equivalent to Regina, which I would argue is a small Winnipeg in terms of public perception. Their nicer freeway network is a result of provincial (+federal) funding and less so municipal decisions. Saskatoon, in any of my personal circles, is seen as a much better place than Regina.

So essentially Winnipeg has about $800-1000 less per person than arguably better perceived cities.

A lot of people gripe about how big of a slice fire and police get, but as some have mentioned, these budgets go up with time and their unions negotiated well. Winnipeg's general revenue hasn't kept up with inflation so as a result, fire and police's piece of the pie keeps ballooning. Winnipeg could start moving at increasing taxation and would start having more funds to spend on virtually anything that could make this place better, and as a results the proportion of the budget dedicated to fire and police would shrink.

Edit: Even if Winnipeg increased taxation to get $3000 per capita, that's $2.52B, an additional 350M per year. That could be a couple interchanges and community centres every single year.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Using Borkbork's numbers and adding Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon, ranked by funds available per citizen.

Calgary population: 1.3M
Calgary municipal revenues: $4.57B
Per Capita = $3515

Saskatoon population: 273k
Regina municipal revenues: $945M
Per Capita = $3462

Edmonton population: 1.1M
Edmonton municipal revenues: $3.68B
Per Capita = $3345

Winnipeg population: 841k
Winnipeg municipal revenues: $2.17B
Per Capita = $2580

Regina population: 229k
Regina municipal revenues: $538M
Per Capita = $2349


I think this might help further demonstrate that Winnipeg has a revenue problem, not (as much) of an expenditure problem. Looking at those five cities and ranking them by overall impression across the country would probably have a ranking chart that matches the list above.

Winnipeg talks about playing the big city game but has a budget to spend equivalent to Regina, which I would argue is a small Winnipeg in terms of public perception. Their nicer freeway network is a result of provincial (+federal) funding and less so municipal decisions. Saskatoon, in any of my personal circles, is seen as a much better place than Regina.

So essentially Winnipeg has about $800-1000 less per person than arguably better perceived cities.

A lot of people gripe about how big of a slice fire and police get, but as some have mentioned, these budgets go up with time and their unions negotiated well. Winnipeg's general revenue hasn't kept up with inflation so as a result, fire and police's piece of the pie keeps ballooning. Winnipeg could start moving at increasing taxation and would start having more funds to spend on virtually anything that could make this place better, and as a results the proportion of the budget dedicated to fire and police would shrink.

Edit: Even if Winnipeg increased taxation to get $3000 per capita, that's $2.52B, an additional 350M per year. That could be a couple interchanges and community centres every single year.

Lots of good analysis here. Too many are quick to automatically assume that government just inefficiently allocates its money - having insufficient revenue is an argument rarely accepted by voters. But I'd argue the following three charts produced by the city in this budget document tell most of the story of where we are as a municipality and how we got here.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

We have terrible leadership. Everyone in local politics does nothing but argue about what should be done then complains when things are way more expensive then kills projects because they’re out of our price range now. Decisiveness, especially on infrastructure has to be a top priority. We have terrible local leaders. Aside from a few mayors and premiers with an ounce of foresight (a la Duff Roblin ) we really have not had anyone who has had the ambition or presence of mind to do anything remotely useful in terms of infrastructure…. Meanwhile our peers continue to outpace us while we sit there scratching our heads trying to come up with « made in Manitoba solutions » which frequently don’t work very well, are more expensive than other proven alternatives, and form the topic of decades of debate on common sense….. sorry, rant over

Terrible politicians at both the civic and provincial level here on all levels with all parties, gutless, small minded self serving assholes is all we get here!

[Hecate]

People can bitch all they want about winnipeggers not paying enough taxes but the people commenting here seriously need a reality check. Look at the average incomes of residents in the cities mentioned above. If I’m not mistaken the average household income in Edmonton is like $20,000 higher than in Winnipeg. WE ARE POOR. Step out of your bubbles and have a drive around the north end, elmwood, centennial, this city is poor.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by Hecate

People can bitch all they want about winnipeggers not paying enough taxes but the people commenting here seriously need a reality check. Look at the average incomes of residents in the cities mentioned above. If I’m not mistaken the average household income in Edmonton is like $20,000 higher than in Winnipeg. WE ARE POOR. Step out of your bubbles and have a drive around the north end, elmwood, centennial, this city is poor.

Actually, you are the one out of touch. Take a look at income distributions by CMA for all the major cities across Canada from the 2021 census. Compare Winnipeg to all the other cities, as percentage shares. Do you know what you will find? Aside from Calgary and Edmonton - which have their earnings skewed by high paying jobs in the energy sector - Winnipeg's income distribution looks a lot like Vancouver, Regina, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax.

Sure, there are more high income people living in Toronto and Vancouver simply because their populations are bigger, but as a share, Winnipeg is relatively on par with other Canadian cities. When looking at labour force survey data, the average hourly wage in Winnipeg isn't that much different either.

So we need to stop with this "we're poor" nonsense. It's how we got here. Sure, average income in Winnipeg used to be well below the national average but it's since caught up. So we need to shed the bad attitude.

Maybe get out of your own low-income bubble in the north end, elmwood, and other central neighborhoods and drive around Tuxedo, Charleswood, Linden Woods, Whyte Ridge, Bridgwater, Wellington Crescent, River Park South, Royalwood, Island Lakes, Sage Creek, and may others and you'll see Winnipeg has a sizeable and healthy middle-class.

Just because you might feel poor, doesn't mean everyone else is. I have yet to see a statistic (and I look at them all day) that tells me Winnipeggers are substantially poorer than our counterparts in other major cities.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Actually, you are the one out of touch. Take a look at income distributions by CMA for all the major cities across Canada from the 2021 census. Compare Winnipeg to all the other cities, as percentage shares. Do you know what you will find? Aside from Calgary and Edmonton - which have their earnings skewed by high paying jobs in the energy sector - Winnipeg's income distribution looks a lot like Vancouver, Regina, Saskatoon, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, and Halifax.

Sure, there are more high income people living in Toronto and Vancouver simply because their populations are bigger, but as a share, Winnipeg is relatively on par with other Canadian cities. When looking at labour force survey data, the average hourly wage in Winnipeg isn't that much different either.

So we need to stop with this "we're poor" nonsense. It's how we got here. Sure, average income in Winnipeg used to be well below the national average but it's since caught up. So we need to shed the bad attitude.

Maybe get out of your own low-income bubble in the north end, elmwood, and other central neighborhoods and drive around Tuxedo, Charleswood, Linden Woods, Whyte Ridge, Bridgwater, Wellington Crescent, River Park South, Royalwood, Island Lakes, Sage Creek, and may others and you'll see Winnipeg has a sizeable and healthy middle-class.

Just because you might feel poor, doesn't mean everyone else is. I have yet to see a statistic (and I look at them all day) that tells me Winnipeggers are substantially poorer than our counterparts in other major cities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...usehold_income

[Hecate]

Then there’s this. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/winnip...1_4839419.html

Like I said:.. get out of the bubble.

[Hecate]

And if the numbers for 2021 are any better it most likely has to do with CERB.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Hecate

WE ARE POOR. Step out of your bubbles and have a drive around the north end, elmwood, centennial, this city is poor.

We are not poor as a city, but our wealth is concentrated in the suburbs. So we might as well be poor because the inner city is the true identity and image of the city. If it looks poor then the whole city looks poor.

The biggest problem for these neighborhoods is that once people get money they leave to other parts of the city rather then reinvesting into the neighborhood. Even the gang money ends up in Tuxedo or Charleswood one way or the other.

But the truth is we are going to get population growth either way which gives us a chance to be rich. Winnipeg will not be seeing a negative population growth rate most likely in our lifetimes with climate change and all. So maybe it’s time for this city to grow up and start building meaningful infill and transit rather then let the growth be wasted at the edge of the city.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hecate

People can bitch all they want about winnipeggers not paying enough taxes but the people commenting here seriously need a reality check. Look at the average incomes of residents in the cities mentioned above. If I’m not mistaken the average household income in Edmonton is like $20,000 higher than in Winnipeg. WE ARE POOR. Step out of your bubbles and have a drive around the north end, elmwood, centennial, this city is poor.

In terms of household income, Winnipeg falls in the middle of the pack of Canadian cities. Winnipeg is ahead nearly every Quebec city, Brantford, Windsor, London, and nearly every Atlantic Canadian city. Saying that "we are poor" in regards to Winnipeg having inferior infrastructure to most Canadians cities is a cop out. Using Edmonton as an example is not fair, considering Alberta cities have the highest incomes in Canada.

Halifax, Regina, Quebec, Saskatoon, and others have better infrastructure, despite either being smaller, or in regions where median household income is less than Winnipeg. The truth of the matter is, Winnipeg lacks the political will to complete major infrastructure projects.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

We are not poor as a city, but our wealth is concentrated in the suburbs. So we might as well be poor because the inner city is the true identity and image of the city. If it looks poor then the whole city looks poor.

The biggest problem for these neighborhoods is that once people get money they leave to other parts of the city rather then reinvesting into the neighborhood. Even the gang money ends up in Tuxedo or Charleswood one way or the other.

This problem exists in nearly every North American city.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Hecate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...usehold_income

It’s interesting that winnipeg has the same median household income as Vancouver, Victoria and Halifax. I never would have guessed that. Montreal’s is crazy low.

That chart shows how oil still means wealthy in Canada.

[GreyGarden]

Very interesting data. I’ve heard that in the Canadian context, Winnipeg actually has a bit of “old money” people living here. It makes sense given the City’s history. You can certainly see the traces of it in Armstrong Point and Crescentwood.

I more or less agree thebasketballgeek, with the exception of Crescentwood and Wellington Crescent, the wealth is mainly concentrated in the suburbs, far from the inner city. I think a lot of Canadian cities have a seen a “back to the city” phenomenon that Winnipeg has largely missed. There is no status or cachet to living in Osborne, West Broadway or the West End. Wolseley has a bit I suppose. There are lots of logical reasons for this - cheap real estate, quick commute times, cultural preferences… It just means that when you go through the inner city, Winnipeg looks and feels very “poor”, even if it has a healthy middle class in the suburbs.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I more or less agree thebasketballgeek, with the exception of Crescentwood and Wellington Crescent, the wealth is mainly concentrated in the suburbs, far from the inner city.

Again, this is not any different than most N American cities. Go to Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, and Saskatoon. It's the exact same situation.

I think a lot of Canadian cities have a seen a “back to the city” phenomenon that Winnipeg has largely missed.

Name one Western Canadian city that has experienced this. Off the top of my head, only Calgary and Vancouver do not really have a inner city that is somewhat improvised, but for the most part, those two cities have always been like that. It's not like either of them had a major problem with inner city housing, and gentrification kicked in, and made the whole area "hip."

In fact, one can make a case that Edmonton is worse than Winnipeg. Just drive anywhere between downtown and the Yellowhead. One can argue Edmoton parallels Winnipeg due to the fact that Whyte Avenue is their answer to Osborne/Corydon, and gentrification is happening in the West Jasper area, just like it's occurring in Wolseley/West Broadway. Saskatoon and Regina are mini versions of Winnipeg, having very low income areas surrounding downtown.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

I more or less agree thebasketballgeek, with the exception of Crescentwood and Wellington Crescent, the wealth is mainly concentrated in the suburbs, far from the inner city. I think a lot of Canadian cities have a seen a “back to the city” phenomenon that Winnipeg has largely missed. There is no status or cachet to living in Osborne, West Broadway or the West End. Wolseley has a but I suppose. There are lots of logical reasons for this - cheap real estate, quick commute times, cultural preferences… It just means that when you go through the inner city, Winnipeg looks and feels very “poor”, even if it has a healthy middle class in the suburbs.

I don't think Winnipeg has "missed" the "back to the city" phenomena because that isn't a time-driven issue, it's a population and congestion-driven issue. Sure, we've seen downtown revitalization in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal - all metropolitan areas 4 to 7 times bigger than Winnipeg in population. The sheer numbers of their population and annual population growth is enough to drive - no, force - middle-class populations into inner-city areas due to the concentration of jobs in their downtown and congestion to get downtown.

Show me a Canadian city around Winnipeg's size that has it's middle-class and associated wealth concentrated downtown. Do Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, Kitchener, London, Quebec, Halifax, or St. Johns have their middle-class concentrated downtown instead of suburbs? I don't think so.

I bet if you'd ask the majority of people aged 30 plus living in condos/apartments in downtown Toronto/Vancouver if they would take a detached house with a fence over their current living arrangements if the cost was equal, and they would say yes with little hesitation. The fact of the matter in North America is that the vast majority of people who are in the mid to later stages of life want a detached home with a yard if they can afford it. And so that is why, all across North America, middle class wealth gets concentrated in suburban areas until congestion and population growth force it to be otherwise.

All cities in North America follow the same pattern: middle-class people left the inner-city as transportation costs and time came down for the "American dream" in the suburbs. And over time, as cities grew congestion increased, land became more scare so prices rose, and in the Canadian situation infrastructure wasn't extended enough to accommodate unlimited suburban growth, so in large enough cities the incoming middle class had no choice but to start off back in downtown areas because that's all they could afford and for most, commuting from suburban Brampton - where detached home prices were still "affordable" - to Bay Street wasn't feasible, so the condo on Young became the selected option over a detached home in Deerfield.

It has nothing to do with rich people wanting condos in Toronto versus detached homes in Winnipeg, it comes down to land scarcity, congestion, and time constraints.

Winnipeg and other similar-sized Canadian cities may get there eventually, but it will just take half a century or so at current population growth rates.

[GreyGarden]

That was a good post Winnipegger, thanks for that. Upon reading your post, “missed” and “a lot” were definitely the wrong words in my original post. As you’ve said in the past, comparing Canadian cities is tricky business seeing as there are not many of them and they do have fairly unique circumstances. Quebec City is maybe the only one that is kind of similar, but I’d say its age, built from and Quebec’s overall circumstances still make it quite different.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

That was a good post Winnipegger, thanks for that. Upon reading your post, “missed” and “a lot” were definitely the wrong words in my original post. As you’ve said in the past, comparing Canadian cities is tricky business seeing as there are not many of them and they do have fairly unique circumstances. Quebec City is maybe the only one that is kind of similar, but I’d say its age, built from and Quebec’s overall circumstances still make it quite different.

Quebec City is not at all similar to Winnipeg. The parallels between cities like Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Regina (terrain, climate, demographics, economy, etc) are far and away a better example to compare Winnipeg to than Quebec City.

It's easier to compare Winnipeg to Edmonton, WInnipeg, and the Saskatchewan cities, since they are flat, have rivers flowing through the downtown, have nearly identical demographics, all are traditionally agricultural hubs, with a large manufacturing base. They also have identical climates. Quebec City is not even remotely close to Winnipeg in anything other than population.