HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 4:45 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
I agree, and I am not fetishizing a larger population for the sake of a larger population, especially since we all know that most of the growth is going to go in the places that are already very crowded. One thing I do lament about our comparatively small population is that we are completely overshadowed by the colossus to the south, whether it comes to our own culture, technology, corporations, and increasingly, politics.
I wonder if increasing population would even really help in that manner, all other things being equal. Canada of 20-30 million from 1960s-1990s had far more distinctiveness and interest in itself.

In a certain sense, I don't think population unto itself matters. The United States of 200 million in the late 1960s went to the moon. 130 million people later, it just went back to low-Earth orbit from being on the ground. The spirit and outlook of the people within the country are what seems to matter.

Hardly anyone would call small-population Ireland (<5 million) as not distinctive. Even though it shares a history and link with the UK, its population doesn't get lost in gazing towards it for obvious reasons. The Kiwis don't get lost in gazing towards Australia. They seem contented to share bits, but define themselves independently.

I would like us to aspire to the same. Our elite doesn't really share that view though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 4:51 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
I wonder if increasing population would even really help in that manner, all other things being equal. Canada of 20-30 million from 1960s-1990s had far more distinctiveness and interest in itself.
Surely this was only due to technological limitations of the day. Canada had to have interest in itself because it had no ability to have widespread interest in anywhere else. It's only natural that in a more globalized world that the smaller countries are overwhelmed by larger countries simply based on output of product.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 5:10 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Surely this was only due to technological limitations of the day. Canada had to have interest in itself because it had no ability to have widespread interest in anywhere else. It's only natural that in a more globalized world that the smaller countries are overwhelmed by larger countries simply based on output of product.
Oh yeah, I completely agree.

Every place has a 'moat' that encourages individual distinctiveness.

The moat is usually comprised of: language, distance, economic clout and lastly, the mentality of its people.

Those have been eroded as globalization has occurred. Canada had the circumstances of mostly sharing a language, small distance made smaller through globalization and being small economically. The cards were stacked against us.

The mentality of places with long history is the thing we lack. We've changed so rapidly that we never really had a chance to get set in our ways (Quebec excepted). So, when the locals gaze towards the US and ignore the local stuff, why should someone new to the country really do any different? Given that's where our population growth is going to come from in the next few decades and it doesn't really follow that more population will act as a barrier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 5:23 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Surely this was only due to technological limitations of the day. Canada had to have interest in itself because it had no ability to have widespread interest in anywhere else. It's only natural that in a more globalized world that the smaller countries are overwhelmed by larger countries simply based on output of product.
Technology can be both/either a blessing or a curse.

Global communications, the Internet and stuff like Netflix has certainly evened out many cultural differences, but in some cases there is also an opportunity there if people take advantage of a new medium and "run with it".

The advent of television, instead of crushing French Canada under an avalanche of stuff like the Honeymooners, Ed Sullivan and Howdy Doody Time, actually played a critical role in the rise of modern Quebec, and the Québécois identity itself. And this happened in spite of the fact that access to (North) American television was actually easy to come by for most Quebecers due to the presence of either over-the-border signals or local channels that catered to the province's anglo minority.

Netflix has been criticized as a national-culture-destroyer and that's been true in many places, but it's actually been a boon for the Nordic countries and also Spain. Their productions are home-grown and country-specific, but are viewed both domestically and around the world.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 6:30 PM
SaskScraper's Avatar
SaskScraper SaskScraper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Saskatoon/London
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
We need to get our act together and climb up the standings, or we'll miss the population playoffs!

I am much more concerned with quality of life and overall prosperity. If growing our population will improve those things, then let's pump up the numbers. But I'm not really convinced that's the case.
Haha, it does seem like a race!,
maybe to the bottom, as far as our environment is concerned anyway.
I wonder if people in China and India ponder about having a 40 million population like Canada. Being higher up in the population rankings may not be what it's cracked up to be. My husband is from the UK but, so far, when asked if he's ready for us to go back to London, he's like "not while we can live in country like this!."

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
I wonder if increasing population would even really help in that manner, all other things being equal. Canada of 20-30 million from 1960s-1990s had far more distinctiveness and interest in itself.

In a certain sense, I don't think population unto itself matters. The United States of 200 million in the late 1960s went to the moon. 130 million people later, it just went back to low-Earth orbit from being on the ground. The spirit and outlook of the people within the country are what seems to matter.

Hardly anyone would call small-population Ireland (<5 million) as not distinctive. Even though it shares a history and link with the UK, its population doesn't get lost in gazing towards it for obvious reasons. The Kiwis don't get lost in gazing towards Australia. They seem contented to share bits, but define themselves independently.

I would like us to aspire to the same. Our elite doesn't really share that view though.
The elites, the American wannabes in Toronto that snub CFL but crave approval from the NBA, or anything south of the border for that matter. British Coulmbian's that ponder strong ties/Independence with Cascadia but mock their neighbouring province next door. The Quebeqois that would rather leave Canada, even the people in Newfoundland that think they could be a sovereign colony of British Commonwealth without hands held out waiting on the assistance of a more stable larger nation. I think Canada even at a larger population won't change these issues.

More people in Canada will mostly just mean over populated largest 6... or 9 largest cities in the country but not offer much to smaller populated areas. There's a huge rural - urban, region to region divide in the country, as can be seen in any federal election this century. Adding more people to the mix isn't really going to change this country's systemic problems. More federal power internationally and to unit provinces but less pitting industry against industry or people against people, Stronger provincial autonomy would help with this.
We have a strong nation but there's too much conflict from within.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 6:45 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaskScraper View Post
Haha, it does seem like a race!,
maybe to the bottom, as far as our environment is concerned anyway.
I wonder if people in China and India ponder about having a 40 million population like Canada. Being higher up in the population rankings may not be what it's cracked up to be. My husband is from the UK but, so far, when asked if he's ready for us to go back to London, he's like "not while we can live in country like this!."



The elites, the American wannabes in Toronto that snub CFL but crave approval from the NBA, or anything south of the border for that matter. British Coulmbian's that ponder strong ties/Independence with Cascadia but mock their neighbouring province next door. The Quebeqois that would rather leave Canada, even the people in Newfoundland that think they could be a sovereign colony of British Commonwealth without hands held out waiting on the assistance of a more stable larger nation. I think Canada even at a larger population won't change these issues.

More people in Canada will mostly just mean over populated largest 6... or 9 largest cities in the country but not offer much to smaller populated areas. There's a huge rural - urban, region to region divide in the country, as can be seen in any federal election this century. Adding more people to the mix isn't really going to change this country's systemic problems. More federal power internationally and to unit provinces but less pitting industry against industry or people against people, Stronger provincial autonomy would help with this.
We have a strong nation but there's too much conflict from within.
We must have different understandings of who constitutes Toronto "elites".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2020, 7:09 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
We must have different understandings of who constitutes Toronto "elites".
I thought his was a pretty apt description. Of at least one notable aspect of them. Obviously such groups are multi-faceted so this isn't their only characteristic.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 5:47 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Canada currently only has the 38th largest population in the world, and that number has been gradually slipping since 1955 when we were in 30th place. Experts predict that by 2045 we'll fall back in 47th place. Woot?
We should probably throw those expert predictions out the window though. They're largely based on extrapolation yet demographic trends have changed substantially since those predictions were made. For a long time Canada was growing at a slower rate than the world average. For a number of years now, the reverse has been true. Like before, making long term predictions is problematic but falling to 47th seems unlikely at this point.

It will be hard for Canada to sustain its current 1.4% population growth rate but we'll likely stay ahead of the global population growth rate. Much of the world outside Africa is seeing the birth rate fall close to the replacement level or below. Canada is in a better position than most to mitigate against that. Canada will continue to get passed by African countries but reel in others like Poland, Ukraine, Spain, South Korea, Italy, etc. The net effect may be that we hold steady around 38th spot... perhaps slip 1-2 places.

Current World population (Nov. 2020): 7,824,515,635 yearly change: 1.05%
Projected World Population 2050 : 9,735,033,990 yearly change: 0.50 %



https://www.worldometers.info/popula...ountries/#past
__________________
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; Nov 29, 2020 at 6:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 5:54 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
We must have different understandings of who constitutes Toronto "elites".
You're imagining "Toronto elites" along the lines of E.P. Taylor, Robertson Davies and Betty Kennedy? Tempus fugit.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 6:50 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
You're imagining "Toronto elites" along the lines of E.P. Taylor, Robertson Davies and Betty Kennedy? Tempus fugit.
Whereas we are probably thinking more of Ted Rogers and Kevin O'Leary types.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 7:35 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,639
Kevin O'Leary was born and bred in Montreal.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 8:28 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Kevin O'Leary was born and bred in Montreal.
Correct but I still see him as a Toronto élite type. He's lived in Ontario since the mid 70s, so basically all of his adult life (at least when he's been in Canada).
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 9:49 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Whereas we are probably thinking more of Ted Rogers and Kevin O'Leary types.
Definitely different understandings of Toronto’s elites.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 1:05 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Canada is a victim of it's climate and geography. Our population density will always be low compared to almost every other country. I have great difficulty imagining a Canada with more than 75-80 million people; but even that would be something, putting us roughly on par with major European countries like Germany, the UK and France.
Southern Ontario alone is similar in area to that of England which has a population of around 56 million, greater than all of Canada. Southern Ontario even shares some other geographic characteristics with England, and could probably support a similar population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 1:18 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Southern Ontario alone is similar in area to that of England which has a population of around 56 million, greater than all of Canada. Southern Ontario even shares some other geographic characteristics with England, and could probably support a similar population.
Most growth now depends on economic development rather than natural resources. Urbanization, having major firms that generate a lot of employment demand and exports, etc. Back in 1910 settlement mostly came down to having good farmland for homesteading but that's no longer true. The big population of the UK exists because they became a large manufacturing, trade, and financial hub.

A few areas in the Maritimes really ended up on the wrong side of this. They have good farmland and a no worse climate than Southern Ontario (I am thinking of places like the western Annapolis Valley, which is about 2 hours from any city) but they are underdeveloped because they never hit any kind of critical mass to develop clusters of industry or sustain all of the amenities that people want these days like advanced healthcare and universities. Almost all successful rural areas these days seem to be near cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 1:35 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Most growth now depends on economic development rather than natural resources. Urbanization, having major firms that generate a lot of employment demand and exports, etc. Back in 1910 settlement mostly came down to having good farmland for homesteading but that's no longer true. The big population of the UK exists because they became a large manufacturing, trade, and financial hub.

A few areas in the Maritimes really ended up on the wrong side of this. They have good farmland and a no worse climate than Southern Ontario (I am thinking of places like the western Annapolis Valley, which is about 2 hours from any city) but they are underdeveloped because they never hit any kind of critical mass to develop clusters of industry or sustain all of the amenities that people want these days like advanced healthcare and universities. Almost all successful rural areas these days seem to be near cities.
Aside from obvious historical differences (between Europe & N. America), I don't think the actual geographic ones are as different as you might think. As for the Maritimes, they don't seem to have the same comparable agricultural, natural, or even geographic advantages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 1:55 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
The big problem in the Maritimes around 1900 was not the total amount of resources, it was how they were geographically distributed and how transportation worked at the time. A lot of people tend to argue that the Maritimes were somehow a harsher place to live or are barren but that's not true. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people earning a living off of natural resources or primary industries there is bigger than it is in BC.

If all the farmland and fishery of the region were concentrated around 1 river valley and Atlantic harbour it would have developed a large city early on. Instead there were a bunch of small towns and cities in the Maritimes that developed small-scale industry and couldn't compete with larger economies of scale of the St. Lawrence watershed or later regional rail networks of Central Canada. Today the Bridgwaters and Yarmouths and Miramichis still struggle because they are hours away from regional amenities and their local area does not have enough resources or development to support its own amenities. They have hit an equilibrium where people exploit the most valuable natural resources but not much beyond that and basic services has developed.

These days the manufacturing scale doesn't matter so much and the region is doing relatively well. The transportation network is better too although the Bay of Fundy and PEI still make travel a lot slower (Halifax and Saint John are 200 km apart but it takes 4 hours; Halifax to Charlottetown is about 175 km). It functions like a region that has maybe 1/2 the density that it actually does because of the transportation issues. It's a good example of why you can't just add up acres of farmland or the dollar value of fishing and mining potential to figure out how developed a region will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 3:19 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The big problem in the Maritimes around 1900 was not the total amount of resources, it was how they were geographically distributed and how transportation worked at the time. A lot of people tend to argue that the Maritimes were somehow a harsher place to live or are barren but that's not true. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people earning a living off of natural resources or primary industries there is bigger than it is in BC.

If all the farmland and fishery of the region were concentrated around 1 river valley and Atlantic harbour it would have developed a large city early on. Instead there were a bunch of small towns and cities in the Maritimes that developed small-scale industry and couldn't compete with larger economies of scale of the St. Lawrence watershed or later regional rail networks of Central Canada. Today the Bridgwaters and Yarmouths and Miramichis still struggle because they are hours away from regional amenities and their local area does not have enough resources or development to support its own amenities. They have hit an equilibrium where people exploit the most valuable natural resources but not much beyond that and basic services has developed.

These days the manufacturing scale doesn't matter so much and the region is doing relatively well. The transportation network is better too although the Bay of Fundy and PEI still make travel a lot slower (Halifax and Saint John are 200 km apart but it takes 4 hours; Halifax to Charlottetown is about 175 km). It functions like a region that has maybe 1/2 the density that it actually does because of the transportation issues. It's a good example of why you can't just add up acres of farmland or the dollar value of fishing and mining potential to figure out how developed a region will be.
Considering how you might evaluate the various advantages or disadvantages influencing population distribution, you might even be able to make a theoretical case for the Maritimes having 50 million people as well, bringing Canada to well over 100 million in potential population, without even considering Quebec or the west.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 11:48 AM
Taeolas Taeolas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 3,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The big problem in the Maritimes around 1900 was not the total amount of resources, it was how they were geographically distributed and how transportation worked at the time. A lot of people tend to argue that the Maritimes were somehow a harsher place to live or are barren but that's not true. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people earning a living off of natural resources or primary industries there is bigger than it is in BC.
IMO, another big factor that held the Maritimes back, was the formation of Canada. Historically, the Maritime provinces were closely tied with the New England states. Most of their trade was North-South, and Upper and Lower Canada were just places on the map barely noticable.

When they got smashed into Confederation, and the new Government of Canada decided to focus on the Great Lakes/St Lawrence corridor, the Maritimes were basically cut off; their only connection to Ontario and Quebec had to follow a dogleg route over Aroostock County in the US and had no direct water routes.

The Quebec Barrier that developed in the mid-20th certainly didn't help things either. Businesses often never seemed to want to put the effort to expand into Quebec from Ontario, and they especially didn't want to reach across Quebec to reach the Maritimes. It did lead to a number of Maritime chains developing in isolation, some of them still strong today; but it also means many rest of Canada chains barely have any presence past Montreal (if they even make it to Montreal).


While it's a non-starter now of course; I do wonder if the Maritimes would have been better if they had jumped with the 13 colonies and joined the States way back in the day. Northern NB would probably still be foobared (similar to Aroostock County in Maine, though with more large towns), but the Bay of Fundy and Halifax loop would have been fed by the Maritime trade to Boston and New York without interruption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2020, 5:17 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeolas View Post
IMO, another big factor that held the Maritimes back, was the formation of Canada. Historically, the Maritime provinces were closely tied with the New England states. Most of their trade was North-South, and Upper and Lower Canada were just places on the map barely noticable.

When they got smashed into Confederation, and the new Government of Canada decided to focus on the Great Lakes/St Lawrence corridor, the Maritimes were basically cut off; their only connection to Ontario and Quebec had to follow a dogleg route over Aroostock County in the US and had no direct water routes.

The Quebec Barrier that developed in the mid-20th certainly didn't help things either. Businesses often never seemed to want to put the effort to expand into Quebec from Ontario, and they especially didn't want to reach across Quebec to reach the Maritimes. It did lead to a number of Maritime chains developing in isolation, some of them still strong today; but it also means many rest of Canada chains barely have any presence past Montreal (if they even make it to Montreal).

While it's a non-starter now of course; I do wonder if the Maritimes would have been better if they had jumped with the 13 colonies and joined the States way back in the day. Northern NB would probably still be foobared (similar to Aroostock County in Maine, though with more large towns), but the Bay of Fundy and Halifax loop would have been fed by the Maritime trade to Boston and New York without interruption.
This is true too. There are a lot of "alternate history" scenarios that would have changed things a lot with only small differences. Geographically the Maritimes are a part of the Eastern Seabord, not the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.

Another possibility would have been if Maritime Union happened (the original plan that became Canada). The Maritimes could have joined Canada or the US later.
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 > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:47 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.