Données et actualités démographiques - Montréal / Montréal métropolitain

[Maisonneuve]

It should have been obvious for decades that Montreal's population growth was slowing down. That's why I've always been surprised by those estimates from the 1970's, some of which can be found in Montreal Think's Big. Montreal never had a well articulated urban system that would allow the metropolis to grow into a megacity of 8-10 million. There weren't alot of satellite towns around Montreal that those old school rich Anglos,who ran the city's business sector, like the Molsons, McGills,Mackay,Redpath etc.. could have created business linkages with. Plus, in their minds, they probably saw no economic gain in branching out into "peasant French towns". For these reasons, most of Montreal's wealth stayed in town. In contrast, around Toronto, there were plenty of smaller towns to branch out into for Eatons, TD Banks,etc...Over the decades it all began a conurbation we now call the Golden Horseshoe. You simply have to look at how urban Canada was settled and evolved economically since the American Revolution and it was obvious Montreal would not be the largest city forever. Most people don't know that. Most people think Montreal's population growth slowed in 1976 when all the political uncertainty really started, but that just exacerbated the slowdown it wasn't the cause. Montreal was always going to be a metropolis and not a conurbation for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

In the future, if Montreal ever wanted to become a conurbation, the AMT would have to be extended to places like Granby, Ste. Hyacinthe, Drummunville, St.Jean-sur-Richelieu. Then people could live all along those lines. Since that would be costly and would promote urban sprawl, that won't happen. However, what would be better would be to increase the density on the island as much as possible.

 

Question: How many people could the island of Montreal hold, if people lost their phobia of tall buildings and started building up?

[Habsfan]

Question: How many people could the island of Montreal hold, if people lost their phobia of tall buildings and started building up?

 

 

Well, i think we could use Manhattan as an example. Manhattan has 1.65 million residents for a land area of 60km², which gives it a density of 27 490 people per square KM.

 

The Island of Montreal has 1.85 million residents for a land area of 499 square KM.

 

If you multiply 499 by 27490, you get 13.7 million people.

[MTLskyline]

It should have been obvious for decades that Montreal's population growth was slowing down. That's why I've always been surprised by those estimates from the 1970's, some of which can be found in Montreal Think's Big. Montreal never had a well articulated urban system that would allow the metropolis to grow into a megacity of 8-10 million. There weren't alot of satellite towns around Montreal that those old school rich Anglos,who ran the city's business sector, like the Molsons, McGills,Mackay,Redpath etc.. could have created business linkages with. Plus, in their minds, they probably saw no economic gain in branching out into "peasant French towns". For these reasons, most of Montreal's wealth stayed in town. In contrast, around Toronto, there were plenty of smaller towns to branch out into for Eatons, TD Banks,etc...Over the decades it all began a conurbation we now call the Golden Horseshoe. You simply have to look at how urban Canada was settled and evolved economically since the American Revolution and it was obvious Montreal would not be the largest city forever. Most people don't know that. Most people think Montreal's population growth slowed in 1976 when all the political uncertainty really started, but that just exacerbated the slowdown it wasn't the cause. Montreal was always going to be a metropolis and not a conurbation for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

In the future, if Montreal ever wanted to become a conurbation, the AMT would have to be extended to places like Granby, Ste. Hyacinthe, Drummunville, St.Jean-sur-Richelieu. Then people could live all along those lines. Since that would be costly and would promote urban sprawl, that won't happen. However, what would be better would be to increase the density on the island as much as possible.

 

Question: How many people could the island of Montreal hold, if people lost their phobia of tall buildings and started building up?

 

I agree completely.

[Né entre les rapides]

It should have been obvious for decades that Montreal's population growth was slowing down. That's why I've always been surprised by those estimates from the 1970's, some of which can be found in Montreal Think's Big. Montreal never had a well articulated urban system that would allow the metropolis to grow into a megacity of 8-10 million. There weren't alot of satellite towns around Montreal that those old school rich Anglos,who ran the city's business sector, like the Molsons, McGills,Mackay,Redpath etc.. could have created business linkages with. Plus, in their minds, they probably saw no economic gain in branching out into "peasant French towns". For these reasons, most of Montreal's wealth stayed in town. In contrast, around Toronto, there were plenty of smaller towns to branch out into for Eatons, TD Banks,etc...Over the decades it all began a conurbation we now call the Golden Horseshoe. You simply have to look at how urban Canada was settled and evolved economically since the American Revolution and it was obvious Montreal would not be the largest city forever. Most people don't know that. Most people think Montreal's population growth slowed in 1976 when all the political uncertainty really started, but that just exacerbated the slowdown it wasn't the cause. Montreal was always going to be a metropolis and not a conurbation for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

In the future, if Montreal ever wanted to become a conurbation, the AMT would have to be extended to places like Granby, Ste. Hyacinthe, Drummunville, St.Jean-sur-Richelieu. Then people could live all along those lines. Since that would be costly and would promote urban sprawl, that won't happen. However, what would be better would be to increase the density on the island as much as possible.

 

Question: How many people could the island of Montreal hold, if people lost their phobia of tall buildings and started building up?

 

Indeed! And let us just note the following:

 

1) Well before the end of the 19th century, Upper Canada (Ontario)'s population had already surpassed Lower Canada (Quebec)'s. Waves of immigration initially from the British Isles plus the majority of Loyalists from the American Republic, quickly overtook the previously far more populated, French-predominant, Quebec. Besides all cultural and political arguments, the determining factor was most certainly the vastly superior agricultural potential of Ontario (area and climate). And remember that in those days, agriculture was the dominant economic activity.

 

2) However, at that time, and for a long period after that, Montreal was and remained Canada's number one city, because its HINTERLAND was the whole of Canada, whereas Toronto's was more confined.

 

3) The factors outlining Montreal's relative decline are well documented, and I will not bore readers here with a pale repeat. I will nevertheless challenge the notion that geography alone (the westward displacement of economic activity and population within the North American continent) was the primary factor. Witness the case of New York City!

 

4) In terms of population, it is generally recognized that the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) passed Montreal CMA around 1976. In addition, the gap between the two CMAs population has since widened considerably. The RARELY DISCUSSED POINT that I want to bring up here pertains to the fact that over that period (say 1975-2010) the LIMITS of the CMAs have been enlarged considerably, consistant with the statistical definition of a CMA. Fact is, the areas newly added to the Toronto CMA were (already) much more populated than the corresponding areas for Montreal--thus, an important component of the speed at which the gap has been developing. Viewed from a different angle: if the geographical limits of the CMAs in (say) 1970 had been what they are now, the population in that year (1970) of the Toronto CMA would have surpassed Montreal's. This is not to say that the official limits were improper in 1970, but simply that there were big numbers there on the verge of being incorporated. (If I find the time, I will do the detailed exercise, based on census data of the respective periods)

 

5) Personnally, I do not feel that being number two in population is such a big issue. What I find extremely serious though is the loss of many thousands of very well-paying jobs in headquarters functions and their multiplier effect on the economy. This is something worth fighting for!

[GDS]

Well, i think we could use Manhattan as an example. Manhattan has 1.65 million residents for a land area of 60km², which gives it a density of 27 490 people per square KM.

 

The Island of Montreal has 1.85 million residents for a land area of 499 square KM.

 

If you multiply 499 by 27490, you get 13.7 million people.

 

Well we all know that Montreal will never ever be like Manhattan. I have always felt that a good model for Montreal would be Queens (8200 per sqkm)

[Malek]

Well we all know that Montreal will never ever be like Manhattan. I have always felt that a good model for Montreal would be Queens (8200 per sqkm)

 

obviously not with our 4 lane streets that we call boulevards. We can't support that many skyscrapers on tiny streets.

 

New York designed with BIG in mind way in the beginning...

[Cataclaw]

obviously not with our 4 lane streets that we call boulevards. We can't support that many skyscrapers on tiny streets.

 

New York designed with BIG in mind way in the beginning...

 

Well, that's not entirely true, Malek.

 

There seems to be little correlation between street size and skyscraper size. Yes, midtown Manhattan has very wide avenues with very tall buildings lining them, but downtown/lower Manhattan has very narrow (and winding) streets with equally tall skyscrapers.

[Habsfan]

Well we all know that Montreal will never ever be like Manhattan. I have always felt that a good model for Montreal would be Queens (8200 per sqkm)

 

Even I'm not crazy enough to think that we can ever achieve Manhattan-like numbers for the Island of Montreal! 6000 to 8000 people per sq KM sounds very good to me (3.5 million for the island) and I think its a number that is reasonnably attainable in the next 50 years.

[Maisonneuve]

obviously not with our 4 lane streets that we call boulevards. We can't support that many skyscrapers on tiny streets.

 

New York designed with BIG in mind way in the beginning...

 

Each of the 12 avenues running north/south in Manhattan are 100 feet wide.

The streets, which run east/west are 60 feet wide and are spaced 200 feet apart, roughly the length of an official NHL rink. The only streets that are 100 feet wide are 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 57th, 72nd,79th, 86th, 96th, 106th, 116th, 125th, 135th, 145th and 155th. That's the Manhattan grid. It makes for some superblocks, you don't see often in Montreal. I think larger blocks invite the design of larger buildings, but they aren't necessary to fill the block. Smaller blocks are seen as more enjoyable for the pedestrians. Vancouver has a grid that is somewhat similar to Montreal's (small blocks and similar size streets) but they have enormous density on those blocks. You can have the density without changing the grid. The grid is part of the DNA of Montreal.

[Malek]

I wasn't asking about changing the grid in Montreal, that won't happen. And that will explain why we won't be as dense as NY.

 

But a population is also the DNA of a city, and the asian/chinese make up also 20% of Vancouver's population, they are accustomed of living in tiny quarters, not the case of Montrealers at large.

 

Those two factors combined (in between others), will make it so that the island of Montreal will not be as dense.

 

P.S. the dense area of Vancouver is just a tiny portion of greater Vancouver. comparable to our plateau-ville marie.