Statistics Canada Reports II

[Innsertnamehere]

As a Hamiltonian, albeit a transplant from Toronto, I still view the city as solidly part of the GTA, albeit on the edge of it. I can drive to Square One in under half an hour most times of the day with the 407, barely longer than it takes me to get to Lime Ridge within Hamilton itself.

The CMA itself especially blurs with Toronto as it includes Burlington which is more in the GTA than many municipalities within the Toronto CMA itself.

I don't think it's a bad thing being in the GTA. it doesn't change the physical character of Hamilton being it's own regional centre in many ways. Personally I like the benefits of living in a more mid-sized city with relative ease of access to big-city amenities.

[phone]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I'm surprised there haven't been any howls of protest from the Hamilton or Winnipeg forumers.

Ask, and ye shall be given, it seems. Hamilton appears to be winning the contest for being less touchy about these things

[Justanothermember]

What is also interesting is that someone from Saskatoon, of all places, appears to be pushing hard for some sort of moral acceptance of a statistical method for population counting that isn't used by StatsCan and has no relevance to how populations are legally tallied in Canada.

As Drew mentioned, it's irrelevant at the end of the day.

[phone]

Lol, the fact that you think the fact I'm from Saskatoon has anything to do with it says all I need to know. Keep living in your parochial hierarchy. For the record I think Winnipeg is a great place.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by phone

Hamilton appears to be winning the contest for being less touchy about these things

Perhaps among forumers.

But I can guarantee you there is a whole demographic of older Hamiltonians who were "retired" when manufacturing plants closed or regional offices were dismantled, who would be (and likely are) hootin' and hollerin' about Toronto... especially after beer-o'clock.

[GreaterMontréal]

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.

You did a post on similar estimates in 2021
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...ostcount=15912

8 462 566.....Toronto / Hamilton / Oshawa / Barrie, ON
4 928 652.....Montréal, QC
3 113 153.....Vancouver / Abbotsford, BC
1 670 533.....Calgary, AB
1 597 973.....Ottawa - Gatineau, ON - QC
1 522 897.....Edmonton AB
996 110.....Québec, QC
970 961.....Winnipeg, MB

Are those based on Functional Urban Areas cause Montreal lost population based on your estimates but Quebec added more than 300 000 people since 2021. Montreal CMA estimates was 4,340,642 in 2021, about 200k less than in 2023.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

According to statscan, once a place reaches CMA status, that status is retained even if the population later drops below the 100k qualification threshold. However, a CA can be downgraded.

"If the population of the core of a CA falls below 10,000, the CA is retired from the next census. However, once an area becomes a CMA, it is retained as a CMA even if its total population declines below 100,000 or the population of its core falls below 50,000."

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r....cfm?ID=geo009

I wonder if what you remember was media noting when the area dropped below the CMA eligibility threshold and therefore wasn't going to be upgraded in the future rather than statscan actually making a change to the CA status.

Or maybe I remember an acronym other than CA or CMA. That said, it would be great if Nova Scotia could develop another metropolitan area of consequence. Cape Breton has long been economically depressed but topographically it's a very attractive place. It does seem to be growing again. Maybe it's retirees cashing out and moving there? I'm doing the Cabot Trail in 2 weeks. Can't wait.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Or maybe I remember an acronym other than CA or CMA. That said, it would be great if Nova Scotia could develop another metropolitan area of consequence. Cape Breton has long been economically depressed but topographically it's a very attractive place. It does seem to be growing again. Maybe it's retirees cashing out and moving there? I'm doing the Cabot Trail in 2 weeks. Can't wait.

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.

[1overcosc]

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.

Oh dear, this is going to send me down a huge statistical rabbithole.

Seriously, though, good post!

[theman23]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Perhaps among forumers.

But I can guarantee you there is a whole demographic of older Hamiltonians who were "retired" when manufacturing plants closed or regional offices were dismantled, who would be (and likely are) hootin' and hollerin' about Toronto... especially after beer-o'clock.

I was about to say, the majority of Hamiltonians would have the no issue with being lumped in with the GTA and would probably agree that the city benefits immensely from being part of the region. The demographic you're referring to are increasingly confined to nursing homes and quite literally have their minds stuck in the past.

[urbandreamer]

Joliette is kind of like Stratford or maybe Collingwood. Many Northshore suburbs of Montreal unfortunately have desolate old cores surrounded by hideous "poor" sprawl like you see in Northern Ontario.

In my experience of Brantford, it's typically its Polish population who commute to Mississauga and Etobicoke food manufacturing companies.

Cambridge and South Kitchener residents are more likely to commute to Western GTA jobs than Guelphites to KW. It's a cultural thing: English Irish Scots don't mix with Germans!

Commuting from Airdrie to downtown Calgary would suck because of traffic, but really it's closer to the core than say Woodstock is to Cambridge but tons of commuters here.

Hamilton really is in its own world. With all these condo towers under construction, it may become its own 3 million powerhouse urban center again.

[1overcosc]

I'm interested in where the heck Kingston's FUA is drawn. The FUA estimate in your chart is 63,054 people more than our CMA borders. I assume it adds Napanee & Gananoque along with their two neighbouring rural townships (Stone Mills & TLTI) which not part of the CMA, are reasonably connected to the city, and have 38,442 additional people combined. But that still leaves an extra 24,612 who would be coming from somewhere, and once you've added those 4 municipalities, anything past that is really distant. Anything further west than Napanee would presumably be part of the Belleville-Trenton FUA, anything further east than TLTI and you're basically in Brockville (which is not really connected to Kingston much at all...), and anything to the north of that and you're in the wilderness.

[urbandreamer]

Is Cornwall part of Montreal?

I randomly took a 3 hour break here yesterday and extensively explored the older bits and core. Interesting how it merges New York State small city vibes with small town Quebec and Northern Ontario rolled into one city, which actually feels like two lol. Anyway, beautiful women!

[MonctonRad]

Since the international FUA is fairly similar to the American CSA, let's look at the top 25 FUA/CSA in North America (USA & Canada)

1) New York City - 21,859,598
2) Los Angeles - 18,316,743
3) Washington - 10,069,592 (includes Baltimore)
4) Chicago - 9,794,558
5) San Francisco - 9,001,024
6) Toronto - 8,854,488
7) Dallas - 8,654,750
8) Boston - 8,345,067 (includes Providence)
9) Houston - 7,706,636
10) Philadelphia - 7,390,919
11) Atlanta - 7,221,737
12) Miami - 7,011936
13) Detroit - 5,361,927
14) Phoenix - 5,124, 113
15) Seattle - 4,993,725
16) Montreal - 4,925,560
17) Orlando - 4,509,624
18) Minneapolis - 4,104,786
19) Cleveland - 3,723,803
20) Denver - 3,691,404
21) Charlotte - 3,387,115
22) Vancouver - 3,342,027
23) Portland - 3,286,669
24) St. Louis - 2,900,730
25) Salt Lake City - 2,805,734

Calgary would be #40 on the list.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

You did a post on similar estimates in 2021
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...ostcount=15912



Are those based on Functional Urban Areas cause Montreal lost population based on your estimates but Quebec added more than 300 000 people since 2021. Montreal CMA estimates was 4,340,642 in 2021, about 200k less than in 2023.

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.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Since the international FUA is fairly similar to the American CSA, let's look at the top 25 FUA/CSA in North America (USA & Canada)

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.

[MonctonRad]

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.

Point taken. They are not entirely analogous.

It disturbs me that the CSA system allows Washington and Baltimore to be combined. These are two distinct urban areas as far as I'm concerned. More distinct than Toronto and Hamilton for example.

[GabMtl1]

The FUA is very interesting, thanks for sharing!
Looking a bit more into it, we can see the numbers (for 2015) for Canada with the OECD method :
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldev...Canada-bis.pdf

Same goes with other countries, easier to compare :
https://www.oecd.org/regional/region...rban-areas.htm

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

As a Hamiltonian, albeit a transplant from Toronto, I still view the city as solidly part of the GTA, albeit on the edge of it. I can drive to Square One in under half an hour most times of the day with the 407, barely longer than it takes me to get to Lime Ridge within Hamilton itself.

Indeed. Hamilton is still it's own thing but very much connected to the GTA. I drove down to visit a friend the other weekend and it took just under an hour - lots of places within the City of Toronto take that time on transit. Or even driving to the Beach(es) from the West End right now given the Gardiner/Lakeshore situation. Improvements to GO - particularly on the Hamilton end will make it a very easy trip.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Point taken. They are not entirely analogous.

It disturbs me that the CSA system allows Washington and Baltimore to be combined. These are two distinct urban areas as far as I'm concerned. More distinct than Toronto and Hamilton for example.

Providence as part of Boston is even weirder to me. While the region is very interconnected Boston certainly doesn't "feel" like an urban area of 8 million. Despite the urban bones it seems like a smaller place than Toronto and Montreal.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

As a Hamiltonian, albeit a transplant from Toronto, I still view the city as solidly part of the GTA, albeit on the edge of it. I can drive to Square One in under half an hour most times of the day with the 407, barely longer than it takes me to get to Lime Ridge within Hamilton itself.

The CMA itself especially blurs with Toronto as it includes Burlington which is more in the GTA than many municipalities within the Toronto CMA itself.

I don't think it's a bad thing being in the GTA. it doesn't change the physical character of Hamilton being it's own regional centre in many ways. Personally I like the benefits of living in a more mid-sized city with relative ease of access to big-city amenities.

Brooklyn is still Brooklyn, no matter that it merged with Manhattan and the other 3 boroughs to form NYC in 1898.