Worldwide Demographics

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Nite

Like most Canada/US comparisson Tampa Bay cover a much larger Area than Canadian cities

Vancouver: 2.5 Million, 2,882 Square Kilometer
Tampa Bay: 3.1 Million, 6,616 Square kilometer

Toronto: 6.4 Million, 5,905 Square Kilometer
Chicago: 9.6 million, 24,815 Square Kilometer

Montreal: 4.1 million 4,259 Square Kilometer
Seattle: 4.0 million 15,209 Square Kilometer

Using the extended area like they do in the US, Montréal would have a little more than 5 million people spread over an area of 12,000 square kilometers. The Quebec government already use that metric to calculate the province's population. The 5 administrative regions that surround the island of Montreal form the extended region of Greater Montreal.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Nite

That's more a factor of the US exaggerated metro areas than anything else. For Canada, Vancouver feels just right with its population number.
Both Toronto and Montreal feel and look much larger than it but Vancouver feels larger than the next group of Cities (Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa)

This tool might give you a better way to compare populations in different countries: https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm

There's only 5 million people in all of British Columbia. You could include the whole province in Metro Vancouver, and I think it'd still feel bigger than it's population.

I think the disconnect stems from the fact that there is very little sprawl in most Canadian metros. So you have these big cores, which Americans would assume are anchoring much larger metro areas, but they aren't. The City of Calgary accounts for ~86% of the Calgary metro. Edmonton accounts for ~68% of its metro. US central cities are lucky to account for 40% of their metros, by contrast.

The cores are simply oversized relative to their metro populations, from my American lens. If Vancouver Island was in America, I'd assume it was the greater city center for a metro of ~6-8 million. More akin to a San Francisco or Boston than Tampa.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nite

Chicago: 9.6 million people in 24,815 Square Kilometer

That area figure is simply a ridiculous artifact of the census burea's MSA/CSA county mash-up silliness. Roughly 75% of that absurdly bloated land area listed above is literally cornfields.

The Chicago Urban Area puts ~8.7M people on 6,327 square kilometers of land. It's a profoundly more accurate depiction of the true physical size of Chicagoland.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That area figure is simply a ridiculous artifact of the census burea's MSA/CSA county mash-up silliness. Roughly 75% of that absurdly bloated land area listed above is literally cornfields.

The Chicago Urban Area puts 8.7M people on 6,327 square kilometers of land. It's a profoundly more accurate depiction of the true physical size of Chicagoland.

Yep: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...rbanized-area/

Chicago's urbanity is often very unappreciated.

Toronto has 6.4 million in 5,905 Square Kilometer
Chicago has 6.2 million in 3,298 Square Kilometer (Cook + DuPage alone = 6,208,418).

Chicago needs ~3,500 square km to house the same population as Toronto needs 5,900.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Yep: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...rbanized-area/

Chicago's urbanity is often very unappreciated.

Toronto has 6.4 million in 5,905 Square Kilometer
Chicago has 6.2 million in 3,298 Square Kilometer (Cook + DuPage alone = 6,208,418).

Chicago needs ~3,500 square km to house the same population as Toronto needs 5,900.

half of the Toronto's CMA is in the greenbelt so i wouldn't say Toronto needs 5,900 Square Kilometer to fit 6.4 million people however.




Toronto CMA = Toronto + Peel + York + 3/4 of Halton + 1/3 of Durham
so likely Toronto needs 3,000 Square Kilometer to fit 6.4 Million

[Nite]

Nevermind

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by edale

There's only 5 million people in all of British Columbia. You could include the whole province in Metro Vancouver, and I think it'd still feel bigger than it's population.

I think the disconnect stems from the fact that there is very little sprawl in most Canadian metros. So you have these big cores, which Americans would assume are anchoring much larger metro areas, but they aren't. The City of Calgary accounts for ~86% of the Calgary metro. Edmonton accounts for ~68% of its metro. US central cities are lucky to account for 40% of their metros, by contrast.

The cores are simply oversized relative to their metro populations, from my American lens. If Vancouver Island was in America, I'd assume it was the greater city center for a metro of ~6-8 million. More akin to a San Francisco or Boston than Tampa.

I totally agree, and Calgary might have been an even bigger shock to my system than Vancouver was. I remember driving into Calgary from the east, you basically go from flat, empty prairie right outside the main expressway loop, to being in the middle of an impressively urban city center, in the matter of about ten minutes. As you stated, there simply isn't very much sprawl.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Yep: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...rbanized-area/

Chicago's urbanity is often very unappreciated.

Toronto has 6.4 million in 5,905 Square Kilometer
Chicago has 6.2 million in 3,298 Square Kilometer (Cook + DuPage alone = 6,208,418).

Chicago needs ~3,500 square km to house the same population as Toronto needs 5,900.

Actual apples-to-apples comparative data for this kind of thing isn't too hard to find:

Toronto Urban Area: population 6,985,000 in 2,300 sqkm (3,037/sqkm)
Chicago Urban Area: population 9,013,000 in 7,006 sqkm (1,286/sqkm)

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by edale

There's only 5 million people in all of British Columbia. You could include the whole province in Metro Vancouver, and I think it'd still feel bigger than it's population.

I think the disconnect stems from the fact that there is very little sprawl in most Canadian metros. So you have these big cores, which Americans would assume are anchoring much larger metro areas, but they aren't. The City of Calgary accounts for ~86% of the Calgary metro. Edmonton accounts for ~68% of its metro. US central cities are lucky to account for 40% of their metros, by contrast.

The cores are simply oversized relative to their metro populations, from my American lens. If Vancouver Island was in America, I'd assume it was the greater city center for a metro of ~6-8 million. More akin to a San Francisco or Boston than Tampa.

The U.S. is also just more populous and heavily settled, so its larger cities exist among a patchwork of surrounding towns and areas to a greater extent. This is why you see such large fluctuations in certain regions (e.g. Boston) between UA, CSA, MSA etc.

This effect is even more pronounced in dense countries like The Netherlands. I mean, how big is Amsterdam? You could say it's the size of Buffalo, Montreal or Dallas-Fort Worth, really, and be kind of right each time.

Canadian cities are relatively isolated.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Tokyo is still growing, but Japan's population isn't yet in freefall. It's in managed decline (2015-2020 had average population loss of 189,000 per year).

I wonder how long Tokyo can last. What happens when Japan starts losing 800,000-1,000,000 people a year? That's when Tokyo could start to struggle.

I guess by that time Tokyo's growth will be flat. Using the definition of the core, I bet it will keep growing as the exurbs are the one slowing down Tokyo.

In any case, that's not a Japanese problem. France, the UK and the US will also experience a smaller growth which eventually we affect New York, London and Paris.

[Innsertnamehere]

US population decline isn't likely to happen in significant numbers this century - even the most pessimistic projections which show countries like Japan and Spain being almost half their population in 50-60 years show the US growing slightly.

The US is boosted by higher than normal birth rates for a developed nation (thanks largely to being a much more religious country than most developed nations) and being an immigrant nation, unlike most western nations. Some European countries have finally started to accept immigration.. but it's running into issues as we all know. The countries that will continue to grow in the 21st century will have to mostly rely on immigration to survive.

I genuinely believe falling birth rates is a very under-discussed issue in politics around the world, and will become a much larger issue in the coming decades as population decline becomes a larger issue. Canada and the US will be spared most of the worst of it, but it will be causing major issues in Europe and Asia in a few decades.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

In any case, that's not a Japanese problem. France, the UK and the US will also experience a smaller growth which eventually we affect New York, London and Paris.

That's obviously nonsense, as the U.S., UK and France all have much higher birth rates than Japan, and more important, all are immigrant nations.

All three countries can have basically any population of their choosing via immigration. Japan is more or less closed, so dependent on birth rates.

France, in particular, has some of the highest birth rates in the developed world. The U.S. could have a billion people in a generation if it made such a choice (of course it won't go that extreme). The UK is a welcoming immigrant nation with higher-than-average birth rates.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's obviously nonsense, as the U.S., UK and France all have much higher birth rates than Japan, and more important, all are immigrant nations.

All three countries can have basically any population of their choosing via immigration. Japan is more or less closed, so dependent on birth rates.

France, in particular, has some of the highest birth rates in the developed world. The U.S. could have a billion people in a generation if it made such a choice (of course it won't go that extreme). The UK is a welcoming immigrant nation with higher-than-average birth rates.

What's nonsense? Have I said those countries have lower birth rates than Japan?

I stated they're also experiencing a slowdown and that will impact their cities as consequences. In fact, the US recently slowdown was even faster than Japan, if decade growth falling from 13% to 6% over mere 20 years.

If Tokyo manages to grow 4% while Japan is shrinking -3%, when Japan to start to decline -10%/decade (they are still very far from it), Tokyo will go flat or start to shrink.

The same can be applied to New York: a US growing 13% more the chances for New York to grow faster than in a scenario of US growing zero (which happened in 2020 and 2021).

Britain and France are more stable, but the recent fall on TFR coupled with COVID made the former shrink in 2020 and latter very close to that.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

US population decline isn't likely to happen in significant numbers this century - even the most pessimistic projections which show countries like Japan and Spain being almost half their population in 50-60 years show the US growing slightly.

The US is boosted by higher than normal birth rates for a developed nation (thanks largely to being a much more religious country than most developed nations) and being an immigrant nation, unlike most western nations. Some European countries have finally started to accept immigration.. but it's running into issues as we all know. The countries that will continue to grow in the 21st century will have to mostly rely on immigration to survive.

I genuinely believe falling birth rates is a very under-discussed issue in politics around the world, and will become a much larger issue in the coming decades as population decline becomes a larger issue. Canada and the US will be spared most of the worst of it, but it will be causing major issues in Europe and Asia in a few decades.

I didn't say the US would shrink, but that it will slowdown. Actually it has slowed down. From 13% of growth between 1990-2000 to 6% between 2010-2020 and most likely to mere 3% between 2020-2030 and that with immigration increasing.

If Tokyo will be hurt with Japan shrinking faster, New York and other US metro areas will also hurt by the US growing slower or going flat.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

What's nonsense? Have I said those countries have lower birth rates than Japan?

Yes, you did. You claimed they have the same demographic issues.

Japan doesn't allow large-scale immigration, so has totally different issues.

These countries could have a birth rate of 0, but still grow, obviously. They can regulate their growth.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, you did. You claimed they have the same demographic issues.

But they do. They are growing slower or shrinking faster every pass decade.

Manitopiaaa asked how Tokyo would behave when Japan starts to lose more people than it's losing now. And I said the other three cities might face the same issue when their respectively countries start to grow much slower than they are doing now.

Originally Posted by Crawford

These countries could have a birth rate of 0, but still grow, obviously. They can regulate their growth.

And we could go to the moon every year since 1969 but we still don't.

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

P.S. About Tokyo, I posted figures from the 2021 Bulgarian Census on the first post of the previous page: Bulgaria shrinking -11% and Sofia growing +15%. As Japan is nowhere near to shrink at such rates (it shrunk -1.5% between 2010-2020), Tokyo still has lots of room to keep things afloat.

[Bonsai Tree]

^^ You seem unable to grasp the concept that the US, France, and UK can always let more people in to counterbalance their low birth rates. Japan has a society that is so homogeneous that they have never allowed any significant levels of immigrants. So no, New York will not be hurt on the same level as Tokyo. Not sure how you can't understand this.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

^^ You seem unable to grasp the concept that the US, France, and UK can always let more people in to counterbalance their low birth rates. Japan has a society that is so homogeneous that they have never allowed any significant levels of immigrants. So no, New York will not be hurt on the same level as Tokyo. Not sure how you can't understand this.

You seem unable to grasp what I wrote on my post. I made no such statements about immigration whatsoever. I know, by heart, the number of immigrants living in all those countries (in Japan, for instance, there are 3 million) and how many enter each year.

Let me draw for you what I wrote:

2010's Japan growing -1%
2010's Tokyo growing +4%

future Japan growing -5% (?)
future Tokyo growing 0% (?)

2010's US growing +6%
2010's NY growing +4% (best relatively growth compared to the US since the 1930's)

future US growing +2% (?)
future NY growing +1% (?)

Do you understand?

[iheartthed]

New York is not the city I'm worried about in a slow growing America.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Yuri

You seem unable to grasp what I wrote on my post. I made no such statements about immigration whatsoever. I know, by heart, the number of immigrants living in all those countries (in Japan, for instance, there are 3 million) and how many enter each year.

Let me draw for you what I wrote:

2010's Japan growing -1%
2010's Tokyo growing +4%

future Japan growing -5% (?)
future Tokyo growing 0% (?)

2010's US growing +6%
2010's NY growing +4% (best relatively growth compared to the US since the 1930's)

future US growing +2% (?)
future NY growing +1% (?)

Do you understand?

You're being way too generous to New York. They banked most of that +4% at the beginning of the decade, before housing bubble, crime, mentally ill homeless/drug addict violence on civilians, hyper-woke DAs, legal immigration plunge, work from home, mass transit bottlenecks, and COVID created a perfect storm.

I'll do cartwheels if they sustain +1% this decade, but I'm not optimistic.