Lower Mainland Population Thread

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

At this point there is too much history and weight behind Vancouver for Surrey to ever really overcome. Can anyone imagine overseas friends or family boasting about their trip to Surrey? Is there any example in history where a suburb has eclipsed the historical city in that manner?

The only thing really aiding Surrey is the continued balkanization of Metro Vancouver into ridiculously small municipalities. For example, there is really no logical reason for Burnaby to exist as a civic entity separate from Vancouver other than tenuous thread of slightly different history. It should be one large city.

The suburb of Vancouver quite literally eclipsed the historical city of New Westminster.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The suburb of Vancouver quite literally eclipsed the historical city of New Westminster.

Vancouver wasn't really a suburb of New West in the sense it is understood today. People didn't settle in Granville, as it was known, to work in New West.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

At this point there is too much history and weight behind Vancouver for Surrey to ever really overcome. Can anyone imagine overseas friends or family boasting about their trip to Surrey? Is there any example in history where a suburb has eclipsed the historical city in that manner?

The only thing really aiding Surrey is the continued balkanization of Metro Vancouver into ridiculously small municipalities. For example, there is really no logical reason for Burnaby to exist as a civic entity separate from Vancouver other than tenuous thread of slightly different history. It should be one large city.

I have no idea what you mean by ‘eclipse’, but if you’re suggesting there won’t be more people living in Surrey than in Vancouver, you’re wrong. For a start, Surrey is much bigger, and as has been noted, grows faster because it has a higher birth rate, and a younger population.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vancouver wasn't really a suburb of New West in the sense it is understood today. People didn't settle in Granville, as it was known, to work in New West.

And lots of people who settle in, or move to Surrey don’t work in Vancouver.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vancouver wasn't really a suburb of New West in the sense it is understood today. People didn't settle in Granville, as it was known, to work in New West.

What about San Jose? Sure, San Jose may not be the tourist magnet that SF is but it has its own self-contained economy as the centre of Silicon Valley and it even stole SF's NFL team. San Jose even has its own suburbs in Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc.

In fact, San Francisco is a very good comparison for Vancouver considering both cities are similarly space-constrained and that San Jose now has a larger population than Surrey.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Projections from Statistics Canada, BC Stats and Metro Vancouver have always shown Surrey's population overtaking Vancoover's somewhere soon after 2041.

Statements from Surrey politicians (usually seeking funding for transit, a new hospital or some other public facility) have often claimed that Surrey will overtake Vancouver 'in the next ten years' (or some other short time-frame). They also use the misleading '20,000 people moved to Surrey last year' without mentioning the 10,000 who left the city.

In reality, Surrey grew by around 10,000 people a year, in the past decade and Vancouver around 6,000. So if those rates of growth continue, to make up the 90,000 difference that existed in 2021 will take about 22 years.

Fair point, was used to hearing all about this growing up in Surrey, guess it was just the political rhetoric in terms of when it would actually happen.

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's almost certainly untrue. Who you know who is already here, and where there are networks to help settle in, plays a big part in where people actually want to move to. Nearly 50% of recent immigrants to Surrey were born in India, while less that 10% of Vancouver recent immigrants were born there. Just under 6% of Vancouver's recent immigrants came from the USA, under 2% of Surrey's. 3% of Vancouver's recent immigrants came from Mexico, 0.5% of Surrey's. etc. etc.

That's true in the same regard as it being cheaper, people move there because it's their landing point in Canada. But also untrue that that is an indicator of where people might actually want to be.

If you take into account that real estate prices are what they are due to supply and demand it doesn't take much to realize where people actually want to be.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

What about San Jose? Sure, San Jose may not be the tourist magnet that SF is but it has its own self-contained economy as the centre of Silicon Valley and it even stole SF's NFL team. San Jose even has its own suburbs in Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc.

In fact, San Francisco is a very good comparison for Vancouver considering both cities are similarly space-constrained and that San Jose now has a larger population than Surrey.

This is exactly what was going through McCallum's head when he wanted to build that NFL sized stadium in Surrey

[GMD]

Yes, sometimes I think about what it would take for Surrey to rival Vancouver in terms of desirability and how it could compete on something other than price.

But honestly, it is tough. The lack of nature in Surrey is difficult to overcome, I would say.

SFU Surrey being designed into a mall was a huge wasted opportunity, and the North Fraser Perimeter Road just cemented the lack of access to the river due to railways and industry. Moving city hall was a good step, just too bad the design/urbanism quality of the new city hall wasn't great, even if the location was good.

I'd say Surrey's best bet is to take advantage of less nimbyism and less bureaucracy to densify rapidly and increase the vibrancy of some key areas.

Lower prices allows for more indie restaurants and shops, and for for more artistic types to live there, but the built environment needs to support this with walkable, mixed-use neighbouhoods, and fine-grained streets and flexible spaces. It will take more than a bunch of condo towers to really change the vibe of Surrey, and that is what they really need if they want to move up the value chain.

Having said that, I always felt that in the absence of natural landmarks, Surrey needed a man-made landmark to really define the city and its downtown. A tower that was 80+ stories and (actually) iconic in design could accomplish this, but it doesn't seem to be on the drawing board, currently.

Or maybe it is just fine to always be the cheaper, more suburban, blander neighbour of Vancouver, but I feel like Surrey aspires to more than that.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GMD

I'd say Surrey's best bet is to take advantage of less nimbyism and less bureaucracy to densify rapidly and increase the vibrancy of some key areas.

Most of Surrey's population growth has come from SFHs replacing forests (and more recently rowhomes). There's plenty of nimbyism to be had once they start trying to bring density into SFH neighbourhoods.

This is the city that won't allow cannabis shops to open afterall. Not to mention the intentional lack of nightlife...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

What about San Jose? Sure, San Jose may not be the tourist magnet that SF is but it has its own self-contained economy as the centre of Silicon Valley and it even stole SF's NFL team. San Jose even has its own suburbs in Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc.

In fact, San Francisco is a very good comparison for Vancouver considering both cities are similarly space-constrained and that San Jose now has a larger population than Surrey.

Vancouver (city) = San Francisco (city) = Hong Kong (island)
Surrey = San Jose = Kowloon
Lower Mainland = Bay Area = Hong Kong
MVRD = 10,000 special planning districts = Hong Kong SAR

Even though population-wise San Jose has passed San Francisco (City), Kowloon has passed Hong Kong (island), and Surrey will do the same to Vancouver (City), the average world citizen is probably going to call the regions "San Francisco", "Hong Kong", and "Vancouver" for the foreseeable future. Especially in the case of Vancouver and Hong Kong, as long as the metropolitan governments are the Metro Vancouver Regional District and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region everyone is going to call the whole region by that name. It's what we're used to and it's also just the official name.

As for where the homes and jobs are, well that's another story.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Even though population-wise San Jose has passed San Francisco (City), Kowloon has passed Hong Kong (island), and Surrey will do the same to Vancouver (City), the average world citizen is probably going to call the regions "San Francisco", "Hong Kong", and "Vancouver" for the foreseeable future. Especially in the case of Vancouver and Hong Kong, as long as the metropolitan

I will point out that the original post I responded to stated that there are no reasons to live in Surrey except for the lower cost per square foot compared to Vancouver. I disagree with this sentiment, but I don't disagree that Vancouver will have a much larger global profile than Surrey for the foreseeable future.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Can anyone imagine overseas friends or family boasting about their trip to Surrey? Is there any example in history where a suburb has eclipsed the historical city in that manner?

The closest parallel that I can think of is the San Francisco Bay Area. I absolutely would say to others that I made a trip to Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, Redwood City, Mountain View rather than SF. Of course San Francisco remains the preeminent city but that doesn't mean the larger metro area doesn't have well known places too.

Metro Vancouver will do its own thing. I hope that over time specific cities will foster their own identities and up their profiles. I think this is already happening with places like North Vancouver, Richmond or even Port Moody having their specific niche identities that are stronger today than they might have been a few decades ago.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Especially in the case of Vancouver and Hong Kong, as long as the metropolitan governments are the Metro Vancouver Regional District and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region everyone is going to call the whole region by that name. It's what we're used to and it's also just the official name.

We have an example right in our backyard that shows even if the region has an official different name (Capital Regional District), and the city is smaller in population than its suburb (Saanich), everyone still goes to Victoria!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

We have an example right in our backyard that shows even if the region has an official different name (Capital Regional District), and the city is smaller in population than its suburb (Saanich), everyone still goes to Victoria!

I don't know the mentality of others, especially those in Victoria, but as someone living on the North Shore I identify as a North Vancouverite while at the same time as someone living in "Vancouver" I identify as a Vancouverite. I'm going to guess most people living in Burnaby would identify as both a Burnabarian and a Vancouverite, and most people living in Richmond would identify as both a Richmonder and a Vancouverite. I'd assume most people in Saanich are both Saanichites and Victorians.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Surrey is Vancouver, it's just not the "City of" Vancouver. In the future it could well be the case that Surrey becomes the centre of "Vancouver" and the City of Vancouver won't be anymore.

As an example, I don't think most people would consider the "City of London" to be the centre of "London" anymore, that would probably be the City of Westminster. It's all still just London, though.

[djh]

In the future - and I don't know if that's a couple decade or more away - all of the surrounding cities of Vancouver will probably become boroughs of a megacity, much like what happened to the suburbs of Toronto, or New York, or London. They will still have their own personalities, pride, centres, etc. But as the population grows to something of actual significance, where this whole region becomes a major draw (I think that's when you're looking at 4, 5, or 6, million people), there will just need to be massive infrastructure investments that are bigger than anything a single small-medium sized city can afford but are needed for the region to reach its potential.

Then federal money will have to be invested at a proper scale, not just voter-pleasing dribbles. And then you'll see real political clout come into play. And major corporations will establish themselves here, not just have hub offices or local upstarts that come and go and eventually move east or south. And cultural and academic centres will bloom.

Once all of that is happening, Vancouver's current downtown will by then be fully densified. Then it will reach a line in the sand: build up and allow mega-density, or the investments will go to Surrey (or Burnaby, or wherever else is a big centre by then). I think that will be the trigger that defines wherever the regional centre remains.

If the suburbs are drawing the big international head offices moreso than the Vancouver downtown core, then Vancouver will become a place just for the tourists and wealthy retired. But if they somehow manage to keep areas of character but also get over the things that frustrate and restrict developers (not just height but lots of other rules and regulations and delaying bureaucracy and high cost), then the downtown could be as great as that of say Toronto - a range of world-class cultural areas, lots of tall towers, many international head offices, lots of human-scale tourism, excellent of transit - plus our own west coast integration of closeness to nature.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Unlike New West in the settler era, the CoV has a massive head start in amenities and tourism over the rest of the region, and even despite viewcones and such, businesses prefer downtown. Surrey or Burnaby could try closing the gap, but that's likely going to shift the centre of gravity to Commercial or Joyce at best, rather than Whalley.

At any rate, the original point of the argument was about whether Surrey will overtake Vancouver population-wise, and the expert consensus is "only a matter of time."

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Unlike New West in the settler era, the CoV has a massive head start in amenities and tourism over the rest of the region, and even despite viewcones and such, businesses prefer downtown. Surrey or Burnaby could try closing the gap, but that's likely going to shift the centre of gravity to Commercial or Joyce at best, rather than Whalley.

At any rate, the original point of the argument was about whether Surrey will overtake Vancouver population-wise, and the expert consensus is "only a matter of time."

No, the original point of the argument was how long Vancouver can maintain its lead over Surrey.

Given Vancouver's more aggressive planning policies of late, combined with its high demand compared to Surrey, imo Vancouver will be the most populated city in the metro far many years beyond 2040.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

No, the original point of the argument was how long Vancouver can maintain its lead over Surrey.

Given Vancouver's more aggressive planning policies of late, combined with its high demand compared to Surrey, imo Vancouver will be the most populated city in the metro far many years beyond 2040.

Lead in terms of population. All the other stuff was tacked on later.

Surrey's growth says otherwise - and they're about to have some heavy urbanizing of their own. Vancouver will still be the cultural and economic centre, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of more affordable housing; ditto Manhattan and Brooklyn.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Vancouver (city) = San Francisco (city) = Hong Kong (island)
Surrey = San Jose = Kowloon
Lower Mainland = Bay Area = Hong Kong
MVRD = 10,000 special planning districts = Hong Kong SAR

Even though population-wise San Jose has passed San Francisco (City), Kowloon has passed Hong Kong (island), and Surrey will do the same to Vancouver (City), the average world citizen is probably going to call the regions "San Francisco", "Hong Kong", and "Vancouver" for the foreseeable future. Especially in the case of Vancouver and Hong Kong, as long as the metropolitan governments are the Metro Vancouver Regional District and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region everyone is going to call the whole region by that name. It's what we're used to and it's also just the official name.

As for where the homes and jobs are, well that's another story.

This sums up well what i was referring to.

[casper]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't know the mentality of others, especially those in Victoria, but as someone living on the North Shore I identify as a North Vancouverite while at the same time as someone living in "Vancouver" I identify as a Vancouverite. ....

As an example, I don't think most people would consider the "City of London" to be the centre of "London" anymore, that would probably be the City of Westminster. It's all still just London, though.

Victoria is a weird place. Amalgamation should have happened many years ago but it is impossible.

Given most people who live in Langford or Oak Bay all put Victoria in their address when they send a letter I don't think near the same as Metro Vancouver.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

No, the original point of the argument was how long Vancouver can maintain its lead over Surrey.

Given Vancouver's more aggressive planning policies of late, combined with its high demand compared to Surrey, imo Vancouver will be the most populated city in the metro far many years beyond 2040.

But Vancouver's 'heavy lifting' for additional population in the 1990s and 2000 was mostly Downtown. There's a bit more still to be developed, but not a lot, and there will be some more in the West End too. Those new plans and opportunities to develop in the rest of the city will replace the Downtown developents going forward, and ensure that Vancouver's population continues to grow, rather than stagnate. It doesn't necessarliy mean it will be developed at a faster rate than it has developed in the past 30 years - just in different parts of the city.