HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 14, 2020, 5:58 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 32,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor View Post
Better question: If Aliens landed on an island in the middle of nowhere in either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean and asked the first ship they happened on to take them to the world capital, where would you take them?
Jacksonville.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 14, 2020, 6:14 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Canada has been working on high speed rail for a long time but who knows when it actually happens. But I think it's safe to predict it will go vastly smoother than any US attempts.


Yes, however, projections are for higher speed rail but not high speed per se. The conclusions for Viarail, the provider, were that a high frequency train service with a maximum of dedicated tracks would serve the corridor better. In other words, the fact that Viarail passenger trains share the tracks with cargo, and that CN owns the rail, they have priority over passenger service in the event of crossover.

https://corpo.viarail.ca/en/projects...dicated-tracks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 15, 2020, 5:30 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 9,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post

If you want to look at long-term growth rates and trend lines, I present you the growth rates of the three cities in the post-WWII era up to 2018.
Future growth prospects (2020 onward) based on current trend lines (2016-2020) would be far more relevant and make more sense. What happened 1945-2015 isn't pertinent.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 15, 2020, 5:59 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 9,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
That's interesting.

In Canada we've always had the impression that the country (and especially Toronto) had developed-world-beating population growth. I do think that most of us who follow such things are aware that Australia's rates are similar or even higher than the ones here.

But I don't think most would expect the UK and London to be in the same ballpark. Not declining, but perhaps just growing very slowly.
Yes, we don't tend to think of London as a fast growing city. London has grown strongly in absolute terms and also in terms of population growth rates for a long time. London growth has been comparable to Toronto growth but I'm not sure if one can still say that. Recent data out of the ONS suggests that population growth has dropped off significantly the last 2-3 years. In terms of the UK and Canada, Canada has had significantly higher population growth rates for decades. In absolute terms, the increase has been very similar as the UK is working off a bigger base population.

As with the London - Toronto comparison, things have changed the last few years. Canada still has a much higher population growth rate than the UK but now its noticeably larger in absolute terms as well. What could only be viewed as a blip after the first year is now a trend line. The question becomes whether the population increase 2018-2019 in Canada and the UK is something we'll see repeated going forward. Is this the new normal?


Population growth 2018-2019

Canada +531,497 (+1.43%)
Australia +371,100 (+1.48%)
United Kingdom +361,257 (+0.54%)


Regarding Melbourne, it records stronger population growth rates than Toronto, but lower absolute population increase. Australia records stronger population growth rates than Canada, but lower absolute population increase. I wouldn't be surprised to see Melbourne and Australia match Toronto and Canada in absolute population increase eventually. Maybe it will be higher? All of these trends are why the Australia - Canada - UK comparison is interesting. Demographically, all 3 could start converging. Australia may start closing the gap with Canada while both Australia and Canada, may start closing the gap with the UK.


https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...020003-eng.htm
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...imates/mid2019
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams

Last edited by isaidso; May 15, 2020 at 6:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 7:43 AM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post
France and Spain also have large areas of land that limit their habitable land, the Alps, Pyrenees, Cantabrians, Sierra Nevada, Massifs, etc… Even then, the contrast in the level of infrastructure between France and Spain and that of the Windsor-Quebec corridor is stark.

Which of course comes back to a previous point I brought up, where is the infrastructure to support this future growth? The Windsor-Quebec Corridor doesn’t have an equivalent to the West Coast Main Line.
Yes, the federal and provincial governments have been pretty bad at building infrastructure, especially non-automobile infrastructure. That's been slowly changing in the last two decades but we have a long way to go. As for the infrastructure to support future growth, the most significant intercity rail project in the works is Via Rail's high frequency rail project. It proposes to upgrade or rebuild a series of old rail corridors to create a new mainline connecting Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City. It's not approved yet. Further along are expansions to urban and regional rail, especially GO Transit, which is being expanded and electrified to be similar to existing European systems. They were even calling it RER for a while.

We'll never have an equivalent to the West Coast Mainline because unlike most countries, the government doesn't control the rail system. Most of it is owned and controlled by private freight railways and they don't play nice with passenger trains. Sure the government could nationalize the system and run it as public infrastructure but there's no political will to do that. So in the last 15 years or so GO has bought as much track as it could and now owns most of its system, and Via is proposing to build its own separate line. Basically we're building an entirely new rail system for passenger trains separate from the existing freight lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Canada has been working on high speed rail for a long time but who knows when it actually happens. But I think it's safe to predict it will go vastly smoother than any US attempts.
There are no active high speed rail plans. Via's plan isn't high speed, but it doesn't really have to be. If it's successful then high speed will be more likely sometime in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 1:08 PM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Yes, we don't tend to think of London as a fast growing city. London has grown strongly in absolute terms and also in terms of population growth rates for a long time. London growth has been comparable to Toronto growth but I'm not sure if one can still say that. Recent data out of the ONS suggests that population growth has dropped off significantly the last 2-3 years. In terms of the UK and Canada, Canada has had significantly higher population growth rates for decades. In absolute terms, the increase has been very similar as the UK is working off a bigger base population.

As with the London - Toronto comparison, things have changed the last few years. Canada still has a much higher population growth rate than the UK but now its noticeably larger in absolute terms as well. What could only be viewed as a blip after the first year is now a trend line. The question becomes whether the population increase 2018-2019 in Canada and the UK is something we'll see repeated going forward. Is this the new normal?


Population growth 2018-2019

Canada +531,497 (+1.43%)
Australia +371,100 (+1.48%)
United Kingdom +361,257 (+0.54%)

(...)

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...020003-eng.htm
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...imates/mid2019
My bet is that all three will slow down as pretty much every country in the world. TFR keeps falling, resulting in an always smaller natural growth. Economic prospects on short term are not that great either.

--------------------------------------------------

About the concept Australia and Canada will necessarily overtake the UK economically and demographically, in the 1960's-1970's, Canadian GDP had reached more than 70% of the British as opposed to 60% now.

On the past 50 years, the British had actually did better than its former dominions, leaving the post-war malaise. Same comparison is valid for Australia, and specially, New Zealand, that dropped from the highest GDP per capita on the developed world to one of the lowest.

And none could imagine on the late 1980's that London would surge the way it did, with a booming population and becoming once again the centre of world's finances.

That's why long term projections are just guesses or pure fiction. Adding Covid-19, even 2030 became to deep in the future.
__________________
Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 2:21 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
About the concept Australia and Canada will necessarily overtake the UK economically and demographically, in the 1960's-1970's, Canadian GDP had reached more than 70% of the British as opposed to 60% now.

On the past 50 years, the British had actually did better than its former dominions, leaving the post-war malaise. Same comparison is valid for Australia, and specially, New Zealand, that dropped from the highest GDP per capita on the developed world to one of the lowest.
I'd like to see this data. I don't believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
And none could imagine on the late 1980's that London would surge the way it did, with a booming population and becoming once again the centre of world's finances.
This is nonsense. The UK had growing population entirely due to increased immigration. When you massively increase immigration, you expect higher population numbers, obviously.

London has always been the global center for finance, which is very different than saying it's the most important city for finance, which it hasn't been for at least 80 years.

What happened in the 1980's is that deregulation unleashed the UK's wealth-making capacity, but it didn't make London more or less relevant as a global center for finance. London will always play a central role given its location and language, and whether the regulatory framework is post 70's light-touch as opposed to previous policies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 4:01 PM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I'd like to see this data. I don't believe it.
Google something like "Wikipedia GDP countries past projected GDP nominal" and you'll find every year from 1960 to 2025. IMF and World Bank as a source.

I'm puzzled about your surprise. It's well known former Dominions historically have had very high GDP per capita and were kinda caught up by European countries recovering after the WWII. New Zealand probably had the worse performance over this period. From the highest GDP per capita in the World (along the US) to one of the smallest amongst developed by the 1990's.

And it's also no secret, British perfomed horribly from 1965-1985 or so, having one of the lowest GDP per capita on developed world. After that period, they started to grow quickly reversing the relative decline and even outperforming its developed peers by the 2000's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This is nonsense. The UK had growing population entirely due to increased immigration. When you massively increase immigration, you expect higher population numbers, obviously.
What's your point? I said British population barely grew between the 1961-1991, and then started to grow very quickly, reaching the climax on the past decade. I said nothing about immigration as obviously it was the main driver.

After all, Britain became much more attractive on this period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
London has always been the global center for finance, which is very different than saying it's the most important city for finance, which it hasn't been for at least 80 years.

What happened in the 1980's is that deregulation unleashed the UK's wealth-making capacity, but it didn't make London more or less relevant as a global center for finance. London will always play a central role given its location and language, and whether the regulatory framework is post 70's light-touch as opposed to previous policies.
London pretty much had disappeared from radar between the 1960's and 1990's, becoming a 2nd tier city. New York was seen as several times more important. London's ressurgence from the 2000's, rivaling with NYC it was completely unimaginable for one person in the 1990's as for them London's role as world city had been long ended with WWII.

And this unexpected economic boom, that shifted long-stand power balances, was mirrored by a population boom, and London population started to grow at Victorian rates (2001-2021 growth for London was the fastest since 1890's).
__________________
Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 4:14 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,281
It's obvious London greatly benefited from the EU. But now that Brexit is official and the UK is ruled by right wing fascists who are very anti-immigration it seems these great two decades for London is coming to a screeching halt.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 16, 2020, 5:39 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 7,376
For London to prosper, the EU was certainly an important factor, but London also benefited immensely from its role as the preferred domicile for the elites of former parts of the British Empire. I don't see this changing.

without Russian and Gulf Arab money London would be a very different place today.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 18, 2020, 12:48 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Future growth prospects (2020 onward) based on current trend lines (2016-2020) would be far more relevant and make more sense. What happened 1945-2015 isn't pertinent.
From a statistical perspective if you’re aiming for long-term projections, it is peculiar to focus on a limited sample size, more so when said data points are from a short period of time, because you increase the chance for distortion from outliers. I am not even disputing the recent growth figures for Canada, more that they are outliers in numeral and percentage terms (whether looking at post-WWII, since 2001, or since 2011) which distort long-term projections that you are attempting to make. That you dismiss several decades of evidence because it does not fit your thinking is short-sighted and the very definition of bias.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
Yes, the federal and provincial governments have been pretty bad at building infrastructure, especially non-automobile infrastructure. That's been slowly changing in the last two decades but we have a long way to go.
It is an interesting dilemma; fail to keep up with population growth, agglomeration and the demands of a modern society and you have the seeds for a mobility crunch which has ramifications for society and the economy. Outside of the GO Transit upgrade, it is surprising that there aren’t more substantial plans to open several new heavy rail lines across the GTA; most work seems to be focused on light-rail projects like Eglinton.

I’ve been pulling together a thread for HS2 - which is now under construction in the UK - and one of the things that put the project into context is that if HS2 followed GO Transit’s Lakeshore West line, based on journey times, Birmingham would be where Oakville is, and Manchester where Burlington is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
This is nonsense. The UK had growing population entirely due to increased immigration.
This is incorrect. Over the past decade net international migration has accounted for 56% of overall population growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
London has always been the global center for finance, which is very different than saying it's the most important city for finance, which it hasn't been for at least 80 years.
The title seems to flip between the two year-on-year, with each having dominance in various markets. New York’s dominance of the mature domestic US market has undoubtedly served it well in previous decades, but there has been a marked shift eastward globally. New York’s limited connectivity and service offering to international developed and high-growth emerging markets leaves it a disadvantage. But I digress, this is not a thread about New York.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
It's obvious London greatly benefited from the EU. But now that Brexit is official and the UK is ruled by right wing fascists who are very anti-immigration it seems these great two decades for London is coming to a screeching halt.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
For London to prosper, the EU was certainly an important factor, but London also benefited immensely from its role as the preferred domicile for the elites of former parts of the British Empire. I don't see this changing.
without Russian and Gulf Arab money London would be a very different place today.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2019_12_21
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2019_04_03
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03
High Speed 2 updated: 2020_05_19
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 8:04 AM
Greavsie Greavsie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
From a British perspective I think we should concentrate on the redevelopment and expansion of other cities around the UK..London will always be a very important city, but I'd like to see Liverpool,Birmingham,Manchester,Glasgow,Leeds,Newcastle,Bristol,Cardiff etc expand and become better Cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 2:11 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
It's obvious London greatly benefited from the EU. But now that Brexit is official and the UK is ruled by right wing fascists who are very anti-immigration it seems these great two decades for London is coming to a screeching halt.
Haven't we learned to not call anything we don't like fascist by now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 4:01 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post
It is an interesting dilemma; fail to keep up with population growth, agglomeration and the demands of a modern society and you have the seeds for a mobility crunch which has ramifications for society and the economy. Outside of the GO Transit upgrade, it is surprising that there aren’t more substantial plans to open several new heavy rail lines across the GTA; most work seems to be focused on light-rail projects like Eglinton.

I’ve been pulling together a thread for HS2 - which is now under construction in the UK - and one of the things that put the project into context is that if HS2 followed GO Transit’s Lakeshore West line, based on journey times, Birmingham would be where Oakville is, and Manchester where Burlington is.
It's interesting that you've been following Toronto transit developments from a continent away - this is usually quite rare!

I think the simplest explanation for why Toronto has pursued projects like light rail ahead of regional rail, let alone HSR, is that the timeframe for the development of transit projects in Canada is usually about 20 years from conception to ribbon cutting, so a somewhat parochial project like the Eglinton LRT was conceived in the mid-2000s when Toronto's transit needs were vastly different.

Around 2006 when the plan was hatched for Eglinton and a suite of other light rail lines, most of Toronto's job growth was suburban, the region lacked a regional transit authority with any real teeth and overall transit use was about 20% lower than it is today (pre-Covid, of course). Building a web of medium-capacity LRT lines across the inner suburbs that conspicuously avoided heading into the centre of the city made some sense at the time, but seems very shortsighted today. For the first time, Toronto needs something more London-esque: high capacity, higher-speed rail corridors to whisk people into the central city.

As MisterF mentioned, they have quietly been making incremental improvements to the GO train system to eventually turn it into something more akin to European regional rail, but it'll be a long, slow project. I think it's difficult to appreciate from a British/European perspective but, until recently, Toronto's commuter train system ran on a very primitive network of rail lines: single, often jointed, track built over a century ago for freight, often running in industrial corridors far from where there was any desire for residential development, almost no grade separations from other conflicting rail lines or roads, usually single platform stations with few amenities and, of course, no electrification. Imagine branch lines running through rural Wales running through a city of millions, and you basically have the kind of system GO inherited and has to turn into something like Parisian RER.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 5:09 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post


What was the point of quoting me if you aren't even going to be bothered to type a basic reply? This is spam.

You didn't like what I said, aww too bad because none of it was untrue. We can all see what's going on with UK politics and it's obviously not good.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 8:26 PM
Mister F Mister F is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
It's interesting that you've been following Toronto transit developments from a continent away - this is usually quite rare!

I think the simplest explanation for why Toronto has pursued projects like light rail ahead of regional rail, let alone HSR, is that the timeframe for the development of transit projects in Canada is usually about 20 years from conception to ribbon cutting, so a somewhat parochial project like the Eglinton LRT was conceived in the mid-2000s when Toronto's transit needs were vastly different.

Around 2006 when the plan was hatched for Eglinton and a suite of other light rail lines, most of Toronto's job growth was suburban, the region lacked a regional transit authority with any real teeth and overall transit use was about 20% lower than it is today (pre-Covid, of course). Building a web of medium-capacity LRT lines across the inner suburbs that conspicuously avoided heading into the centre of the city made some sense at the time, but seems very shortsighted today. For the first time, Toronto needs something more London-esque: high capacity, higher-speed rail corridors to whisk people into the central city.

As MisterF mentioned, they have quietly been making incremental improvements to the GO train system to eventually turn it into something more akin to European regional rail, but it'll be a long, slow project. I think it's difficult to appreciate from a British/European perspective but, until recently, Toronto's commuter train system ran on a very primitive network of rail lines: single, often jointed, track built over a century ago for freight, often running in industrial corridors far from where there was any desire for residential development, almost no grade separations from other conflicting rail lines or roads, usually single platform stations with few amenities and, of course, no electrification. Imagine branch lines running through rural Wales running through a city of millions, and you basically have the kind of system GO inherited and has to turn into something like Parisian RER.
True, and that's partly what I was talking about when I said that we're basically building a brand new rail system from scratch. GO expansion is so massive, a $17 billion project, precisely because the starting point was so primitive. To your point, part of the reason that there's so little heavy rail expansion is that we're finally making use of the existing rail corridors that converge downtown. It only makes sense to expand what's already there. Further subway expansion is still needed of course, but we could end up with a system where the regional trains are just as important as the subways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 21, 2020, 1:36 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greavsie View Post
From a British perspective I think we should concentrate on the redevelopment and expansion of other cities around the UK.. London will always be a very important city, but I'd like to see Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff etc expand and become better Cities.
I think devolution of powers to cities is the way forward rather than any top-down reorganisation of concentrating on one place over another. We tried that after WWII, where UK governments sought to constrain the growth of London and the West Midlands (which after WWII was wealthier than London) with the Location of Offices Bureau and Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act 1965. The redistribution failed, undermined the UK economy, culminating in the 1976 IMF Crisis.

I’d like to see more city-focused transport and infrastructure bodies that have increased powers akin to Transport for London. Currently it is all a bit disjointed. Liverpool has Merseyrail, but the 16 and 13 commuter rail lines that respectively serve Manchester and Leeds are operated by the Northern franchise which has an opaque remit. That in turn limits the ability to align transport improvements with city and wider regional policy initiatives. There is a lot of untapped potential to bring a lot of the UK up to a higher level.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
It's interesting that you've been following Toronto transit developments from a continent away - this is usually quite rare!
I’m keen on following global rail developments.

It will be interesting to see years from now whether there was a missed opportunity to develop or safeguard old and prospective corridors before the city began to sprawl outwards across virgin land. If the regional population growth continues on the long-term average, I suspect that there will be immense pressure for expensive heavy engineering projects that go beyond increasing existing line capacity. Toronto Union will probably need to be completely rebuilt along the lines of say London Bridge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
What was the point of quoting me if you aren't even going to be bothered to type a basic reply? This is spam.

You didn't like what I said, aww too bad because none of it was untrue. We can all see what's going on with UK politics and it's obviously not good.
It isn’t that I didn’t like what you said, it is that it is a load of mindless drivel, but let us review your ‘points’:
  1. I voted remain, but I’d hesitate to align London’s success to EU membership. London is a service-based economy in a single-market heavily orientated towards agriculture, goods and manufacturing. The majority of London’s goods and service exports are outside of the EU. London was certainly the primary gateway for EU citizens migrating to the UK, but I’ll revert back to this below.
  2. The present UK government is incompetent and clearly right of centre but claiming that they’re fascist just displays a complete lack of understanding of politics in the UK and any indication as to the definition of fascism as an ideology.
  3. The Tories want to bring in an immigration points system like that of Australia and Canada. Since the referendum, the lack of certainty behind British residency was a key driver behind the decline in EU net migration, but in the last year the rate of growth has stabilised. Once clarity sets in as to the future relationship between the UK and the EU, I suspect that EU net migration will rise again, because the fundamentals behind the UK (as a place to work and live) over the long-term remain. I’d also note that non-EU net migration continued to grow after the referendum, and that is despite the UK government having full control over non-EU immigration.
  4. There is no evidence that the ’great two decades for London is coming to a screeching halt’.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2019_12_21
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2019_04_03
London General Update Thread updated: 2019_04_03
High Speed 2 updated: 2020_05_19
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 23, 2020, 12:38 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,281
If you believe secession from a union that made movement on an entire continent basically seamless and an increasingly anti-immigrant right wing government will have no impact on immigration trends then I don't know what to tell you.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 23, 2020, 10:39 AM
yuriandrade's Avatar
yuriandrade yuriandrade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
If you believe secession from a union that made movement on an entire continent basically seamless and an increasingly anti-immigrant right wing government will have no impact on immigration trends then I don't know what to tell you.
BBC, May 21st: UK migration: Net migration from outside EU hits 'highest level'

Quote:
Figures show an estimated 282,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in 2019, the highest since the information was first gathered in 1975.

(...)
Regardless the opinion on Brexit, Britain remains a very strong migrant magnet and there's no reason it shouldn't be. A very wealthy country, with strong educational and healthy institutions, strong labour market, an "international culture" easily to adapt with.
__________________
Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 23, 2020, 3:07 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Except most immigration to the UK is from Europe. Poland is the largest immigrant group in the UK; Germany, Ireland and France also have huge numbers. This immigration is largely done. It would be like Australia blocking Asian immigration or the U.S. blocking Latin American immigration. Hell, it's almost like NY or LA blocking non-tristate or non-CA migration. This will be a looming demographic time-bomb.

Obviously non-European immigration will be forced to increase, but overall immigration to UK will plummet, meaning population growth will plummet. Roughly 75% of population growth in the UK post-2000 is due to immigration.

And the only way to recover is to draw more people from Pakistan instead of Germany, which is madness. UK will likely be one of the slowest growing major world economies in the next few decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.