HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


View Poll Results: Winnipeg's (CMA) Population in 5 Years Will Be.....
740,000 or less 40 23.39%
740,000-750,000 26 15.20%
750,000-760,000 24 14.04%
760,000 or more 81 47.37%
Voters: 171. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 5:54 PM
cslusarc cslusarc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 257
Don't you find it somewhat weird that the Winnipeg CMA includes all of the RM of St Clement's such that is stretches all the way to Grand Marais? Can't the CMA include only relevant portions of selected municipalities? On the other hand it doesn't include for example the RM of St Andrew's.

Last edited by cslusarc; Jun 19, 2016 at 6:10 PM.
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 7:11 PM
YWG-RO YWG-RO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 223
Might make more sense to just include adjacent RMs and towns or UVDs within them.

That is, exclude St. Clements and Brokenhead. This will reduce the population by about 11-12,000.

Makes more sense to bundle St. Clements with St. Andrews and City of Selkirk.
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 8:44 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by cslusarc View Post
Don't you find it somewhat weird that the Winnipeg CMA includes all of the RM of St Clement's such that is stretches all the way to Grand Marais? Can't the CMA include only relevant portions of selected municipalities? On the other hand it doesn't include for example the RM of St Andrew's.

That's nothing. You should see Edmonton's CMA boundaries. They may as well have included the whole area from Jasper to Lloydminster.
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 8:46 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWG-RO View Post
Might make more sense to just include adjacent RMs and towns or UVDs within them.

That is, exclude St. Clements and Brokenhead. This will reduce the population by about 11-12,000.

Makes more sense to bundle St. Clements with St. Andrews and City of Selkirk.
I'm sure St.Andrews will be included in the not-too-distant future, once the southern part of the RM is built up, and the commuting pattern exceeds 50%. I imagine it's fairly close right now.
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 8:55 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by cslusarc View Post
Don't you find it somewhat weird that the Winnipeg CMA includes all of the RM of St Clement's such that is stretches all the way to Grand Marais? Can't the CMA include only relevant portions of selected municipalities? On the other hand it doesn't include for example the RM of St Andrew's.
It has to include 100% of the R.M. If 50% or more of people in St.Clements commute to Winnipeg and back, then it becomes part of the CMA. St.Andrews must be close, but fails to meet that criteria.

If you really want a good laugh, check out Edmonton's CMA boundaries.
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 8:55 PM
Cyro's Avatar
Cyro Cyro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,197
You started a really great thread (poll) a while back on Winnipeg's CMA (mid 2015) population...
Your Poll topped out at : over 795,500, almost 52% of voters..Great prediction, in this thread and the newer one..


Population of Winnipeg CMA (July 1, 2015) http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217916

I just realized this poll is almost 2 yeaers old..(Closed)
__________________
♥ ♥
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro View Post
You started a really great thread (poll) a while back on Winnipeg's CMA (mid 2015) population...
Your Poll topped out at : over 795,500, almost 52% of voters..Great prediction, in this thread and the newer one..


Population of Winnipeg CMA (July 1, 2015) http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=217916

I just realized this poll is almost 2 yeaers old..(Closed)
Incidentally,

When the poll was first made, most people were very conservative, and did not expect the city to grow that much. I left the poll open too long, and after a couple of years, most were voting for the 760,000+ option.
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 11:24 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,760
Interesting that places like Stony Mountain and Stonewall are not included in the CMA. That would be an additional 7,000 or so.
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2016, 11:40 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
That's nothing. You should see Edmonton's CMA boundaries. They may as well have included the whole area from Jasper to Lloydminster.
lol very true!

Wpg CMA must be over 800k by now
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2016, 2:26 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
Interesting that places like Stony Mountain and Stonewall are not included in the CMA. That would be an additional 7,000 or so.
Yeah, it's weird. When many people who live out there work in Winnipeg. And if they don't, they're in Winnipeg on the regular.
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2016, 4:53 PM
Kronos's Avatar
Kronos Kronos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 104
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2016, 5:17 PM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
Hopefully the immigrants will come from desirable countries (Europe, Christian Africa, India, and the Far East). I think the situation in Europe has taught us the pitfalls of having lax immigration standards, and not enforcing identity cards.
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2016, 7:08 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
Hopefully the immigrants will come from desirable countries (Europe, Christian Africa, India, and the Far East). I think the situation in Europe has taught us the pitfalls of having lax immigration standards, and not enforcing identity cards.
We have never had lax immigration standards. We also have the benefit of an ocean. We also have a large Muslim population, and haven't had problems.
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2016, 6:04 AM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
Hopefully the immigrants will come from desirable countries (Europe, Christian Africa, India, and the Far East). I think the situation in Europe has taught us the pitfalls of having lax immigration standards, and not enforcing identity cards.
"desirable" countries?? Singling out "Christian" Africa over what, Non-Christian Africa? Why? Why specifically say that? I've read this post a few times and I can't help but feel saddened every time I re-read it.

What makes Christian Africa any better or more "desirable" than Non-Christian Africa? The religion? Ironic to the implication, a fair chunk of Christian Africa has (or has had) just as much bad violence as what ISIS has been doing, the only difference is it isn't broadcasted in HD and reported by the media to the same extent. And, much of Non-Christian Africa is incredibly peaceful. Why even bring religion into such a statement...some people are just bad people, doesn't matter (and it should't matter) what faith they have.

More stringent Immigration policies probably wouldn't change anything in Europe, given how illegal immigration has been happening in the first place (this is one reasons among many why Brexit has been a farce in so many regards)....What makes Europe "desirable"? Should we include European & Asian countries that have heavy Mafia/organized gang influence and come into Canada, pollute our streets with drugs and sex trafficking, things that actually, directly adversely affect us as Canadian citizens on a daily basis more than any of these religious extremist terror organizations do?

Why should people from South America and Central America be excluded? Why exclude the Middle East from that list? Why should Australians and those from New Zealand be excluded? Why should anyone "deemed not desirable" be excluded?

Homeland security is exceptionally important...but what you're implying is "picking and choosing" who should be allowed to immigrate based on subjective, biased and perceived "desirability"

Love a lot of your posts Jets4Life, but this one was...shocking to read. Its the train of thought which leads someone to make a post like that, to choose those specific words, about "desirable countries" and everything it implies, which is what makes it shocking to read.



Thank the red and white flag and everything that I hope it stands for, that this type of thinking is not prevalent in our constitution.
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2016, 7:16 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Back from the dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
Hopefully the immigrants will come from desirable countries (Europe, Christian Africa, India, and the Far East). I think the situation in Europe has taught us the pitfalls of having lax immigration standards, and not enforcing identity cards.
I don't think it's right to judge anybody based on where they're from. Any country will do as long as they have the right attitude towards immigrating to Canada. That part is as much our job as theirs if we want to integrate them properly.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2016, 9:53 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is online now
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket View Post
I don't think it's right to judge anybody based on where they're from. Any country will do as long as they have the right attitude towards immigrating to Canada. That part is as much our job as theirs if we want to integrate them properly.
Agreed. I think the only problem is some people refuse to integrate to any meaningful extent.
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2016, 8:57 AM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM View Post
Agreed. I think the only problem is some people refuse to integrate to any meaningful extent.
Well said.
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2016, 12:47 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
As of 5 years ago, there was as many Muslims in Canada as status Indians (sic).
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2016, 5:21 AM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life View Post
No offense, but you have absolutely no idea what is going on in Europe. If I am so wrong, why is an incompetent politician like Donald Trump within striking distance of becoming the next American president.

PS...I did not mention Australia or Ocenia, Latin America, etc. Most people know what I am talking about. My way of thinking is supported by a huge percentage of people in most Western based democracies. In fact, my opinion is that of the majority in the USA, UK, Eastern Europe, and even Canada.

Say what you want about me. I could not care less about being "politically correct." On a forum like this, it will lead to a lot of non-so-kind replies. However, this must be addressed if we are to grow as a nation. We can't just put our heads in the sand like Germany, Sweden, France, and some other Western European countries are doing. When decorated soldiers are killed in broad daylight, in the most barbaric way imaginable, it's time to start debating about whether we should close the borders to the ethnic community responsible for these acts.
Lol well, you might be right that I have "no idea" about what's going on over there...maybe my lack of an idea is that I am biased, because I voted against Brexit (by proxy, since I'm a British citizen...with investments, property, family, well a bunch of ties to the UK and the EU in general...I have to follow it as a result, I like to be informed about my vote, yes its been a hot topic there recently, my own family was divided about it too, though mostly unanimous as to the long term impact of leaving...but worth mentioning that it is also a topic that has been hot decades before Brexit became a coined term)

And I am not trying to be snarky here; I don't know if you are an EU (or former EU) citizen and if you are indirectly affected by what has been going on there, with respect to your profession or family or personal investments, and I don't know how long you've been following the various iterations of this overarching movement that ultimately made Brexit a reality (which predates my lifespan)

Most of the immigrants that have had the pro-Brexit population up in arms aren't even of middle eastern origin or muslims. In fact they come from one of the areas you said we should let in Canada in an earlier post that starts and ends with an "E". Sure, different regions of the UK had differing opinions, but for example I know of a few British Muslim neighbours who voted for Brexit for that very reason...they were up in arms for the same reason many pro-Brexit Brits were (I didn't agree with their opinion on leaving but alas democracy and all that, but I digress...this is all a bit OT for a Winnipeg CMA thread....though, Brexit has been a ridiculous gong show)

Politically correct or not, you still effectively single out Muslims...Why? Your "Christian Africa" statement really exemplifies this...why on earth should a Non-Christain African be treated any differently in the immigration process than someone who lives next door in the same African country but has a different faith?

Most of those who are in need of refuge from the atrocities going on in the middle east right now would be excluded from our borders based on your criteria....yet we could allow some "fanatic" in our borders from Europe...which for whatever reason is "OK" or passes the "they can come to Canada because of where they live" test

I have no personal stake or attachment to your opinions about the extremists. In fact I share a belief with you in that religious fanatics can be dangerous (but this goes for any person, of any religion). It is a fact that there are some downright monstrous terrorist organizations on this planet and we do need to protect ourselves and our citizens from these threats.

I do, however, have an issue with your implications, and singling out millions of people just because of their faith or that they are from the Middle East or from "Non Christian" Africa or some set of regions that you are "hopeful" about immigrating over others....this kind of train of thought is just....its beyond disappointing to read someone, someone who seems to be a relatively well educated Canadian at that, effectively excluding an entire group or groups of people based on their faith.

Yeah, sure you did say "not all of them are bad..." but reading between the lines of your posts from the initial statements to this one... there is a clear, negative bias. I mean, if it was just about the terrorism aspect, you wouldn't need to exclude the Middle East in that list or "non Christain" Africa from your list...(never mind that there are millions of Christians in the middle east) and further explain why you left out places like Australia "cause we should know what you're getting at"...that is ridiculous dude.

At least you love the Jets, so I guess you're not all bad
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2016, 7:08 AM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
Lol well, you might be right that I have "no idea" about what's going on over there...maybe my lack of an idea is that I am biased, because I voted against Brexit (by proxy, since I'm a British citizen...with investments, property, family, well a bunch of ties to the UK and the EU in general...I have to follow it as a result, I like to be informed about my vote, yes its been a hot topic there recently, my own family was divided about it too, though mostly unanimous as to the long term impact of leaving...but worth mentioning that it is also a topic that has been hot decades before Brexit became a coined term)

And I am not trying to be snarky here; I don't know if you are an EU (or former EU) citizen and if you are indirectly affected by what has been going on there, with respect to your profession or family or personal investments, and I don't know how long you've been following the various iterations of this overarching movement that ultimately made Brexit a reality (which predates my lifespan)
I appreciate your civility on this issue, as I can come across as hot-headed. I am of British ancestory as well (although my Grandmother was the last to have lived there). I am a staunch supporter of free trade, and globalization. I am in full support of the EU, and wish the UK had voted to stay. I am also in favor of NATO, NAFTA, and other trade organizations.

However, there is one ethnic group who cannot assimilate into any country where they are a minority. I feel sorry for the majority of that group of people, since they are law abiding citizens. What I object to, is the minority of the culture who want to wage war by any means necessary, usually targeting innocent civilians. I am most concerned with their religious leaders, who refuse to condone these acts in most cases, and seem to send an indirect message that God is ok with what has happened.


Quote:
Politically correct or not, you still effectively single out Muslims...Why? Your "Christian Africa" statement really exemplifies this...why on earth should a Non-Christain African be treated any differently in the immigration process than someone who lives next door in the same African country but has a different faith?
Muslims have committed terrorist acts in nearly ever country in the World where they are a minority. I'm usre there are examples, but I cannot recall Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus engaging in this type of behavior on a massive scale.

Quote:
Most of those who are in need of refuge from the atrocities going on in the middle east right now would be excluded from our borders based on your criteria....yet we could allow some "fanatic" in our borders from Europe...which for whatever reason is "OK" or passes the "they can come to Canada because of where they live" test
Sorry, can you elaborate. Thx.

Quote:
Yeah, sure you did say "not all of them are bad..." but reading between the lines of your posts from the initial statements to this one... there is a clear, negative bias. .
When an ethnic group has repeatedly committed some of the most barbaric acts, as a minority to the civilian population of their host countries, it tends to breed negativity of said group.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:35 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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