2019 Population Estimate of Canadian Metropolitan Areas

[Nite]

Statscan just released the latest metropolitan stats for Canadian cities


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...uest_locale=en

I know it's against statcan's rule to merge CMA's once they are created but I wish the following CMA's were merged into one

Toronto - Hamilton - Oshawa: 7,680,502
Vancouver - Abbotsford - Mission: 2,893,304
Kitchener - Waterloo - Guleph: 749,495

[edale]

I always forget how small the major Canadian cities are (Toronto excluded). Their skylines way over-perform compared to their size. Impressive growth all around, though!

[Nite]

Originally Posted by edale

I always forget how small the major Canadian cities are (Toronto excluded). Their skylines way over-perform compared to their size. Impressive growth all around, though!

Canada and the US don't use the methodology when measuring metropolitan populations so no use comparing the two results

[GreaterMontréal]

If Montréal would be in the US, its MSA would be about 5M.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

If Montréal would be in the US, its MSA would be about 5M.

Highly unlikely. If Montreal were in the U.S. it would probably be significantly smaller, owing to cold weather, isolated location, and would be completely different structurally and culturally.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nite

Canada and the US don't you the methodology when measuring metropolitan populations so no use comparing the two results

I know this. Doesn't change the fact that Vancouver is roughly a ~3 million person metro, which is roughly the size of Tampa or San Diego. Vancouver just seems so much larger and more important than those cities, and obviously has way more skyscrapers. Canadian cities punch above their weight when it comes to urban development.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Highly unlikely. If Montreal were in the U.S. it would probably be significantly smaller, owing to cold weather, isolated location, and would be completely different structurally and culturally.

I'm talking about how you mesure your metropolitan statistical areas.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Highly unlikely. If Montreal were in the U.S. it would probably be significantly smaller, owing to cold weather, isolated location, and would be completely different structurally and culturally.

That's taking the discussion to a whole different place, though.

His point is that Montreal is a Boston-sized city/metro. Different criteria for calculating metro area populations are what make it appear smaller to some.

I doubt most people in the U.S. would consider Boston or Philadelphia and others in the U.S. in Montreal's weight class, to be "small" cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's taking the discussion to a whole different place, though.

His point is that Montreal is a Boston-sized city/metro. Different criteria for calculating metro area populations are what make it appear smaller to some.

So the actual point is "if Canada used U.S. MSA classifications instead of Canadian metro classifications, Montreal would be more populous". That's possibly true, but irrelevant.

U.S. metros, apples-to-apples are much more expansive than non-U.S. metros. Atlanta is (physically) much bigger than Tokyo, even by MSA. But Atlanta really is that big; it would be silly to apply Tokyo standards to Atlanta.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I doubt most people in the U.S. would consider Boston or Philadelphia and others in the U.S. in Montreal's weight class, to be "small" cities.

I think that's a different argument. I also don't think Montreal is in Boston/Philly's weight class outside of urbanity.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think that's a different argument. I also don't think Montreal is in Boston/Philly's weight class outside of urbanity.

MTL and Boston feel about the same, Philly feels/is a bit bigger.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

MTL and Boston feel about the same, Philly feels/is a bit bigger.

In terms of urbanity, agreed. Overall, I think Philly and Boston, especially, is a half-tier to tier above in terms of wealth, education, career opportunities, cultural resources, etc.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In terms of urbanity, agreed. Overall, I think Philly and Boston, especially, is a half-tier to tier above in terms of wealth, education, career opportunities, cultural resources, etc.

There is definitely more wealth in Boston and Philadelphia than in Montreal. That being said, levels of inequality appear to be higher in Bos/Philly too.

Make of them what you will, but most global city rankings place Montreal squarely in between Boston and Philadelphia in terms of influence/importance.

The economies of Boston and Philadelphia are certainly larger (GDP/capita always tends to be higher in US cities versus their Canadian counterparts) but Montreal is no slouch when it comes to education, cultural resources, even the presence of international organizations (ICAO, WADA) etc.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In terms of urbanity, agreed. Overall, I think Philly and Boston, especially, is a half-tier to tier above in terms of wealth, education, career opportunities, cultural resources, etc.

Philly and Boston are top tier cities within the historical center of an economic superpower, they have that advantage. Montreal is no slouch in education though...McGill is a fine university.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

The economies of Boston and Philadelphia are certainly larger (GDP/capita always tends to be higher in US cities versus their Canadian counterparts) .

And that's true of U.S. cities vs. much of the rest of the world as well.

They're about the same size and I'm personally familiar with both, and no matter what the GDP numbers say I've never gotten the impression that Detroit was overall a richer city than Melbourne...

[jd3189]

If just looking at city proper, I would put Montreal at the same level as Philadelphia with Boston just below. Metro wise, US cities spread out more geographically. However, the development in the core or city proper with associated nodes is more impressive than anything else.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In terms of urbanity, agreed. Overall, I think Philly and Boston, especially, is a half-tier to tier above in terms of wealth, education, career opportunities, cultural resources, etc.

Even struggling U.S. metros often outperform similarly-sized or larger Canadian ones in terms of wealth and career opportunities.

As for education and culture, Montreal certainly compares favourably to Boston and Philly - it's just that most of its "stuff" is in French so you're not aware of it. Or maybe discounting it.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

it's just that most of its "stuff" is in French so you're not aware of it. Or maybe discounting it.

This. Pretty common.

[mousquet]

They can train some brave computer nerds in Quebec anyway.

I'll never forget, some of them helped me in French online in using stuff like Latex, some advanced C++ tricks and computer gadgets like those, sparing me from reading related English documentations for hours.
And you know, that's not exactly the most exciting kind of readings you could think of. Lol.

Then I'm forever thankful to them.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even struggling U.S. metros often outperform similarly-sized or larger Canadian ones in terms of wealth and career opportunities.

True, though Canadian metros tend to outperform even thriving US metros in measures such as wealth-disparity, crime (particularly gun violence), healthcare and medical outcomes, and poop/needles on sidewalks (much less of it).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mousquet

They can train some brave computer nerds in Quebec anyway.

I'll never forget, some of them helped me in French online in using stuff like Latex, some advanced C++ tricks and computer gadgets like those, sparing me from reading related English documentations for hours.
And you know, that's not exactly the most exciting kind of readings you could think of. Lol.

Then I'm forever thankful to them.

Anything for a cousin.

(Well, that's not always automatically the case. But it was a good line so I used it...)