When did it become apparent that Toronto would surpass Montreal...

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Architype

The two cities' populations closely parallel each other up until around 1975, so the cause or catalyst is pretty clear.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_227717868

So, briefly, and simplistically stated, the article says that the size etc. of a city depends upon the size of its hinterland (sphere of influence), and that depends on things like language and culture. When Montreal stopped being a city which is inclusive of English, and became a de facto French speaking city, it's hinterland and sphere of influence, shrunk drastically, inhibiting growth. Montreal today is a city relatively starved of meaningful and copious outside cultural or social interaction (especially in the economic sense from the Anglosphere), except those within the province. Here is an excerpt from an older quoted text.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nd_Toronto#pf3

The metrics used here to calculate Toronto's population in the 40's are substantially inflating it because they're counting everything within the post-amalgamation metropolitan area.

Willowdale , Black Creek, Don Mills were their own towns and communities and didn't identify with Toronto proper anywhere to the same extent they do today.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

By the way, isn't there already an old thread on this? The subject is not new.

there have probably been twenty threads on this subject over the years. At least. It is one of those old SSP chestnuts.

The OP answered his question in the first post. There is no real mystery here that hasn't been solved.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The metrics used here to calculate Toronto's population in the 40's are substantially inflating it because they're counting everything within the post-amalgamation metropolitan area.

Willowdale , Black Creek, Don Mills were their own towns and communities and didn't identify with Toronto proper anywhere to the same extent they do today.

Perhaps, but it would not be consistent to switch metric definitions in the same graph. Here it says as much; "Population of Toronto and Montreal metropolitan areas from 1901 to 2001. Sources: Statistics Canada (decennial censuses since 1921-1961; every five years since 1966)."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

It's even apparent that Vancouver may one day surpass Montreal, at least in some ways, some of the immigration stats suggest that this is possible.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail.../t001b-eng.htm

Anything is possible of course, though this would be extremely unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future.

Montreal has a substantial lead, plus there have been recent periods where Montreal has taken in more immigrants in sheer numbers than Vancouver has.

Montreal would have to literally start emptying out for that to happen. Even under a slow-growing Montreal vs fast-growing Vancouver scenario, it would still take an extremely long time for Vancouver to overtake Montreal.

It's even more likely (though still unlikely) that Vancouver might start emptying out slightly due to affordability issues than Montreal will empty out due to some other factor.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Perhaps, but it would not be consistent to switch metric definitions in the same graph. Here it says as much; "Population of Toronto and Montreal metropolitan areas from 1901 to 2001. Sources: Statistics Canada (decennial censuses since 1921-1961; every five years since 1966)."

Yes, and I am sure that all those peripheral areas near Toronto that didn't see themselves as part of Toronto or the Toronto area in 1950, had Montreal equivalents that didn't see themselves as Montrealers either. but are also included in the data.

[hipster duck]

Strangely, the era where Montreal really felt head and shoulders above Toronto was in the early 1960s, which is, of course, when Toronto was poised to overtake Montreal.

This would have been the era of the great Montreal skyscrapers like PVM, Tour de la Bourse, and CIBC as well as the construction of the metro, which would have been space age compared to the tin cans that were running under Yonge Street.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Anything is possible of course, though this would be extremely unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future.

Montreal has a substantial lead, plus there have been recent periods where Montreal has taken in more immigrants in sheer numbers than Vancouver has.

Montreal would have to literally start emptying out for that to happen. Even under a slow-growing Montreal vs fast-growing Vancouver scenario, it would still take an extremely long time for Vancouver to overtake Montreal.

It's even more likely (though still unlikely) that Vancouver might start emptying out slightly due to affordability issues than Montreal will empty out due to some other factor.

It could happen given a long time, even though Vancouver has more physical constraints which determine it's development.

Maybe in 2076? Here is a most convenient graph.


https://archive.canadianbusiness.com...treal-in-size/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

The two cities' populations closely parallel each other up until around 1975, so the cause or catalyst is pretty clear.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_227717868

So, briefly, and simplistically stated, the article says that the size etc. of a city depends upon the size of its hinterland (sphere of influence), and that depends on things like language and culture. When Montreal stopped being a city which is inclusive of English, and became a de facto French speaking city, it's hinterland and sphere of influence, shrunk drastically, inhibiting growth. Montreal today is a city relatively starved of meaningful and copious outside cultural or social interaction (especially in the economic sense from the Anglosphere), except those within the province. Here is an excerpt from an older quoted text.


The English people of Montreal are more than an ethnic minority in a city. They are, in fact, the metropolitan element of Canada’s metropolis. Some among them direct the great economic institutions which operate throughout Canada and beyond the national borders. . . . English Montreal’s hinterland is half a continent. . . . Those of the French who are in dominant positions are concentrated in institutions which have for their hinterland, not the continent, but merely the province

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nd_Toronto#pf3

This is actually borderline ethnocentrism, in addition to being from, what, 60-70-80 years ago?

I think you might need to update your references, since they obviously lead you to say ridiculous statements like this:

Montreal today is a city relatively starved of meaningful and copious outside cultural or social interaction

I know you did quickly acknowledge the anglosphere context, but you still fail to truly recognize that the world is a lot bigger than the anglosphere.

I don't live in Montreal but it is my nation's metropolis and because it is predominantly francophone there is food, music, literature, movies, TV, traditions and whole bunch of stuff from around the world that I am familiar with and that you've never even heard of.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

It could happen given a long time, even though Vancouver has more physical constraints which determine it's development.

Maybe in 2076? Here is a most convenient graph.


https://archive.canadianbusiness.com...treal-in-size/

From 2013. Since that time, there were periods where Montreal's percentage growth outpaced Vancouver's, and now since around the time of the pandemic I believe Vancouver has been growing faster in percentage terms for a couple of years.

How often has Vancouver added more people in sheer numbers than Montreal? I don't have those stats, but this would be a better indicator of the likelihood of one city passing another at some point.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Architype

It could happen given a long time, even though Vancouver has more physical constraints which determine it's development.

Maybe in 2076? Here is a most convenient graph.


https://archive.canadianbusiness.com...treal-in-size/

The graph is cute but such long term projections are almost always wrong. Remember, Montreal was supposed to have 7M people... in the year 2000. How did that go?

Here is the article that the graph came from: https://archive.canadianbusiness.com...treal-in-size/

The dude applied the growth rates from the latest census at the time (2016) in perpetuity.

I have a hard time imagining an 8.8M Vancouver or an 8.2M Montreal. This also assumes that the government's current immigration policies will continue for the next 40 years. Like... do the citizens of Greater Vancouver want to become a megacity (approaching the 10M threshold)?

It should be pointed out that pre-covid Montreal was still adding more people than Vancouver, widening the gap. We've yet to really see how population trends in Canada will settle post-covid.

Personally, I don't see Vancouver surpassing Montreal. Extraordinary circumstances would be necessary.

Can we talk about when Calgary will surpass Vancouver (and then of course, Montreal) though?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

The graph is cute but such long term projections are almost always wrong. Remember, Montreal was supposed to have 7M people... in the year 2000. How did that go?

I have a hard time imagining an 8.8M Vancouver or an 8.2M Montreal. This also assumes that the government's current immigration policies will continue for the next 40 years. Like... do the citizens of Greater Vancouver want to become a megacity (approaching the 10M threshold)?

It should be pointed out that pre-covid Montreal was still adding more people than Vancouver, widening the gap. We've yet to really see how population trends in Canada will settle post-covid.

Personally, I don't see Vancouver surpassing Montreal. Extraordinary circumstances would be necessary.

Can we talk about when Calgary will surpass Vancouver (and then of, course Montreal) though?

Most likely demographic "overtakings" in Canada:

City of Surrey overtaking City of Vancouver

Alberta overtaking British Columbia

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Most likely demographic "overtakings" in Canada:

City of Surrey overtaking City of Vancouver

Alberta overtaking British Columbia

In the minds of most English Canadians (ROC to be precise), Vancouver is already the 2nd largest city in Canada. See esteemed politician Jason Kenney's pitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22w...ovingtoCalgary

Similarly, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are all more populous than Montreal - already. And have been for some time - because, you know... Quebec.

One of our many Great Canadian Pastimes in mocking Americans for their ignorance...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

In the minds of most English Canadians (ROC to be precise), Vancouver is already the 2nd largest city in Canada. See esteemed politician Jason Kenney's pitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22w...ovingtoCalgary

Similarly, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are all more populous than Montreal - already. And have been for some time - because, you know... Quebec.

He knows his market.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Most likely demographic "overtakings" in Canada:

City of Surrey overtaking City of Vancouver

Alberta overtaking British Columbia

Looking forward to the day when Greater Surrey surpasses Greater Montreal in size and importance.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

He knows his market.

I am by no means saying the graph projection is correct, but he did take it from actual trends. Also, if you had a graph from 1900, it would also show faster growth for Vancouver. If nothing else, it adds a bit of speculative drama to the thread. I don't know where 8 million people would live in Vancouver metro, whereas Montreal is surrounded by areas which can be developed.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Montreal's heyday as the unquestioned metropolis was quite a bit shorter than the common narrative implies... Confederation to World War One might even be a stretch. Toronto had its eyes on the prize since the 1890s.

The concentration of mining shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange was the factor that led to its surpassing the Montreal Exchange. Language is significant, as Bill 101 made it impossible for Montreal to really act as an English-speaking city in daily life, but the Toronto Exchange was larger by market cap by 1930.

Exactly. Agreed with the rest of your posts as well. The oft-repeated Canadian narrative of Metropolis Montreal vs podunk Great Lakes town was never really true in any meaningful way. For the most of the 20th century things were closer than further apart - though there are reasonably nuanced takes about Montreal's superior cultural reach vs Toronto's business ascendency. Things would have had to shake out differently in the mid-late 1800s for Montreal to ever be Canada's true primate city (note that Toronto doesn't fit the bill either, really).

The comment about lack of corporate HQs in Toronto above you responded to was an odd one. Toronto eclipsed Mtl in this respect very early on. But of course this isn't all that makes a city.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The metrics used here to calculate Toronto's population in the 40's are substantially inflating it because they're counting everything within the post-amalgamation metropolitan area.

Willowdale , Black Creek, Don Mills were their own towns and communities and didn't identify with Toronto proper anywhere to the same extent they do today.

True, but the same can be said for Montreal as well simply because we didn't measure things in the same way / for the same purposes then. Both figures include areas that wouldn't really be considered true "suburbs" at the time. In reality what we would probably consider metro montreal hit 1 million in 1930 or so while metro Toronto would have been around 800,000. Just after WWII Toronto hit 1 million while Montreal was about 1.2 or so.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Strangely, the era where Montreal really felt head and shoulders above Toronto was in the early 1960s, which is, of course, when Toronto was poised to overtake Montreal.

This would have been the era of the great Montreal skyscrapers like PVM, Tour de la Bourse, and CIBC as well as the construction of the metro, which would have been space age compared to the tin cans that were running under Yonge Street.

It almost acts as a bit of a warning - Montreal was at its relative economic zenith (socio-cultural... not-so-much) when its rival passed it. It's not the first city to fall from apparent grace when it appeared so outwardly successful.

I wasn't around for Expo or the Olympics but I can understand the nostalgia for those times within my linguistic cohort. That being said, it is very very apparent that today's Montreal is a far superior city than yesterday's by almost every metric.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Montreal's present zeitgeist of focusing on design, infrastructure and general urban maintenance is the city's best option for the moment, and it is good at it. It can put together a square, a street or even a transit system better than anywhere else in Canada by some margin. It has a talent for infrastructure and self-optimization. But I wonder whether the question of its destiny will at some point come back. It's great to be a North American Copenhagen, but there is a point at which it matters that Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, and that Denmark has a per capita GDP of USD 68,000 (vs. about 38,000 for Quebec).

Very much so. Just got back from a weekend in Montreal for the first time since 2017 and there's a surprising amount of change. It really excels at the small things that Toronto (and every other city in Canada really) can struggle with.

Interesting question about the future though. Especially since one of my takeaways wasn't so much that "Montreal is just better at this" rather than "damn, it wouldn't really be *that* hard for us to catch up if people put their mind to it".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

It almost acts as a bit of a warning - Montreal was at its relative economic zenith (socio-cultural... not-so-much) when its rival passed it. It's not the first city to fall from apparent grace when it appeared so outwardly successful.

I wasn't around for Expo or the Olympics but I can understand the nostalgia for those times within my linguistic cohort. That being said, it is very very apparent that today's Montreal is a far superior city than yesterday's by almost every metric.

As I often like to say: for a far greater share of its resident population.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

From 2013. Since that time, there were periods where Montreal's percentage growth outpaced Vancouver's, and now since around the time of the pandemic I believe Vancouver has been growing faster in percentage terms for a couple of years.

How often has Vancouver added more people in sheer numbers than Montreal? I don't have those stats, but this would be a better indicator of the likelihood of one city passing another at some point.

But you're missing context. Vancouver is Canada's best city, apparently, so of course it will exceed Montreal (or any other place Canada) in all aspects. This idea appears regularly in the weather thread... get with the program!