News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.4K     0 

Who will be Alberta's largest metro in a decade?

All I'm saying is I think there is potential there. Particularly if Canada's immigration rate stays high and people get squeezed out of other areas because of the cost of living.

At the very least I would not be surprised if Lethbridge gets on a solid roll...especially if it reaches a critical mass of sorts.
 
If Medicine Hat had a lake or some way to actually enjoy the summer heat, then maybe. Lethbridge has proximity to the mountains, so that would be a logical choice if one were looking for an affordable and hot Alberta city to live in. I think Crowsnest Pass is super underrated, I've been wondering when it will start to boom...
 
I imagine someone has done a study on this before about "good weather attracts growth" - I know people always talk about the weather, and it's a big factor for vacation decisions, but is that actually a core driver of why people actually move/stay/leave a place? I'd assume for most people employment, family and access to services/amenities are the bigger factors, probably more so than even affordability - which is why some cities keep growing yet are wildly expensive.

Perhaps in wealthier, seniors in retirement demographics weather is a more important factor as they have the means to move and aren't looking for access to employment markets usually?

Not to say that some people don't move for the weather - people move for millions of reasons - just trying to think through how major of a factor it actual is.
From what I've seen over the years, the major driving factor for most city growth is jobs, jobs and jobs and the second most popular factor maybe international immigration based on existing communities/family members. Literally every international immigrant I've known who has moved to Calgary has come here because of a job or because they have some family, friends or contacts here.
I have run across a few cases where people who are avid skiers or hikers move to Calgary due to the mountains. It's a convenience as they can get a job here, and also enjoy their hobbies. Something that's difficult to do in places like Kimberly, Nelson, Invermere, etc..

I would say things like climate and amenities help keep people more than attracting them. Just my two cents.
 
My prediction was more....lots of people within Canada are looking for affordable places to live and the overlap between affordable places and decent climates in Canada now is pretty narrow. Southern Alberta is sort of overlooked in that sense. It's possible that Medicine Hat doesn't grow much because most of the people in that category just pick Lethbridge but I also wouldn't be surprised if it did get get some traction.

Medicine Hat

Avg Annual Temp: 6.1C
Avg Annual Sunshine Hours: 2544
Avg Annual Snowfall: 88cm
If there are people moving for the weather, I don't think that they're moving for 30 minutes of sunshine a day or 20 cm less of snow to shovel a year.
I couldn't help notice some cities you didn't mention in terms of weather:
1692813768514.png

I can get moving from the cold places to the not-cold places if you can afford it; how big a difference is it really to move between the colder places?


I imagine someone has done a study on this before about "good weather attracts growth" - I know people always talk about the weather, and it's a big factor for vacation decisions, but is that actually a core driver of why people actually move/stay/leave a place? I'd assume for most people employment, family and access to services/amenities are the bigger factors, probably more so than even affordability - which is why some cities keep growing yet are wildly expensive.

Perhaps in wealthier, seniors in retirement demographics weather is a more important factor as they have the means to move and aren't looking for access to employment markets usually?

Not to say that some people don't move for the weather - people move for millions of reasons - just trying to think through how major of a factor it actual is.
Statistics Canada does the Canadian Housing Survey, which asks about over a dozen reasons for moving; weather isn't included amongst them. There is the option to pick "other reasons", which almost nobody chooses. (And it's not more commonly chosen for people who move to CMAs in BC, which would be the most obvious move-for-the-weather group.)

Here's the reasons given why people move, based on whether they move within a city or to a new city. This is the 2021 CHS; the reason of moving because of a fire/disaster wasn't in the microdata and is pretty uncommon, so far. Note that people can answer more than one thing, so it doesn't add up to 100%. Also note that "move to a different city" can mean someone moving to Calgary from Chestermere, or from Charlottetown, or from Chongqing.
1692814096738.png

The main reasons people move between cities (but not within) are for a new job or school, or to be closer to family. The main reasons people move within a city are for a bigger/better dwelling or because of a change in the household size (Forced to by the bank, landlord, previous tenants etc. are also more move-within-city reasons). Becoming a homeowner, reducing household costs and moving to a better neighbourhood are common in both groups.

I took households who moved in the last 10 years (to get more observations) and split them into households with a senior and households without a senior. Here's the reasons:
1692814452478.png

Here there's a few interesting gaps between the different groups; the households changing cities for jobs/school are mostly nonseniors, while those moving to family are mostly seniors. Nonseniors are also more likely to move (same city or different) to form households, reduce commuting time, and become homeowners, while seniors are likely to move (same city or another) to reduce housing costs or for personal health reasons.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen over the years, the major driving factor for most city growth is jobs, jobs and jobs and the second most popular factor maybe international immigration based on existing communities/family members. Literally every international immigrant I've known who has moved to Calgary has come here because of a job or because they have some family, friends or contacts here.
I have run across a few cases where people who are avid skiers or hikers move to Calgary due to the mountains. It's a convenience as they can get a job here, and also enjoy their hobbies. Something that's difficult to do in places like Kimberly, Nelson, Invermere, etc..

I would say things like climate and amenities help keep people more than attracting them. Just my two cents.

My two cents of anecdata are similar; I know a couple of people who were recruited here for reasonably senior, specialized technical work. One came from the US and was an avid fly fisherman; the other came from eastern Canada and wasn't seriously considering the move, but he stayed a couple days longer and apparently called his wife from the chairlift at Sunshine and told her to start packing. But they wouldn't have moved here if they didn't have a good job offer for their particular skill set.
 
Was just going through and reading this thread and a lot of good and interesting points/comments made about the population growth and differences between Calgary and Edmonton (I'm an Edmonton forumer FYI).

I think the privatization of Telus and its subsequent move away from Edmonton is a microcosm of what was happening between the two cities. The 90's and early 2000's were brutal on Edmonton. Very little was happening and it was just a stagnant city in many ways. I guess in a sense Edmonton was "caught off guard" by its stagnation and the subsequent "rise" of Calgary. The 70's and 80's were arguably the best times in Edmonton and things quickly shifted in the 90's and I think it led to a prolonged period of Edmonton trying to figure out what it's identity was because of this shift.

There is no single factor that led Calgary to leapfrog Edmonton. I honestly think it's a bit of a miracle that Edmonton has continued to growth at an incredible rate despite being ignored by the Province. We've had a serious lack in investment in education, healthcare and major infrastructure projects and despite that the city chugs along quietly. I'm also a believer that for the next while, both cities will be very similar population wise but that Calgary will widen the gap slightly over time. Calgary has aspired to be a more metropolitan city in the ranks of the big three (which I know is another debate not worth getting into) in the same sense as Houston. Edmonton is only now beginning to shed its insecurity (self-deprecation has held Edmonton back for far too long) and "accept" it's place as an important city in the national sense but will continue to fly under the radar and embrace a look and feel more in tune with Austin. Our mix of blue collar workers, hipsters, students, white collared folk etc. have helped give a strong sense of identity here and it's been real fun watching Edmonton change for the better in the last decade.

Having said all that, a high speed rail between the two would give Alberta some serious political and economic weight that I'm sure it badly desires.
 
I wonder how long it will be before the Calgary region surpasses Metro Vancouver to be the third largest city in the country. Given Vancouver's serious lack of land and affordability issues, I think it's quite concievable in the next 30-40 years.
 
I wonder how long it will be before the Calgary region surpasses Metro Vancouver to be the third largest city in the country. Given Vancouver's serious lack of land and affordability issues, I think it's quite concievable in the next 30-40 years.
It's possible. Vancouver's big advantage is its huge immigration numbers. It's on track this year to attract around 60,000 immigrants. That's 1 million new people in less than 20 years at current rates. Calgary needs to start attracting over 30,000 immigrants a year before it will have a chance to overtake Vancouver. Domestic migration won't support Calgary forever and growth from natural increase will soon become a thing of the past as our fertility rate in Canada is way below replacement level.
 
I don't see Calgary catching up to Vancouver, at least in my lifetime, there's too much of a gap. Toronto and Vancouver will continue to grow at high rates, even if they are expensive. The interesting race for me is Montreal and Vancouver. Montreal holds a sizable lead, but if the two cities see growth patterns like we've seen in some recent years, Vancouver might actually pass Montreal in my lifetime. Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa will stay grouped as the secondary tier of large cities, pulling away from the third tier cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec, and soon joining Kitchener Waterloo.
 
I don't see Calgary catching up to Vancouver, at least in my lifetime, there's too much of a gap. Toronto and Vancouver will continue to grow at high rates, even if they are expensive. The interesting race for me is Montreal and Vancouver. Montreal holds a sizable lead, but if the two cities see growth patterns like we've seen in some recent years, Vancouver might actually pass Montreal in my lifetime. Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa will stay grouped as the secondary tier of large cities, pulling away from the third tier cities like Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec, and soon joining Kitchener Waterloo.
I agree with that assessment about Calgary not likely catching up to Vancouver for a long, long time (at least not for several decades). Vancouver, despite its dire problems and circumstances for people living there, is still an international city with a huge reach and pull with immigrants. That also isn't accounting for the fact that Vancouver draws in a ton of young people who want to experience the "lifestyle" and "coolness" factor that the city offers, at least for a few years. However I don't think Vancouver will ever catch up with Montreal. The gap is way too significant for that to be a scenario in this century. As well, Montreal is doing well economically and if Quebec continues to stabilize economically and politically, it will just reinforce Montreal's place as the de facto number two city for a long time.

Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa will most definitely continue to pull away from everyone else like you said and really solid themselves as Canada's tier two list of cities.
 
There is no single factor that led Calgary to leapfrog Edmonton. I honestly think it's a bit of a miracle that Edmonton has continued to growth at an incredible rate despite being ignored by the Province. We've had a serious lack in investment in education, healthcare and major infrastructure projects and despite that the city chugs along quietly. I'm also a believer that for the next while, both cities will be very similar population wise but that Calgary will widen the gap slightly over time. Calgary has aspired to be a more metropolitan city in the ranks of the big three (which I know is another debate not worth getting into) in the same sense as Houston. Edmonton is only now beginning to shed its insecurity (self-deprecation has held Edmonton back for far too long) and "accept" it's place as an important city in the national sense but will continue to fly under the radar and embrace a look and feel more in tune with Austin. Our mix of blue collar workers, hipsters, students, white collared folk etc. have helped give a strong sense of identity here and it's been real fun watching Edmonton change for the better in the last decade.
I with your post agree for the most part. The only thing I would disagree with is the comparison of Calgary to Houston or Edmonton to Austin. From my experience neither city is comparable to either Austin or Houston. As someone who grew up in Toronto and southern Ontario, I see Calgary and Edmonton as far more similar to each other than they are to any American city.
I think people often compare Calgary to Houston because of both cities having oil company head offices but outside of that there are few if any similarities. Austin was probably more comparable to Calgary or Edmonton 20 years ago, but nowadays it feels more like a mini Houston, or like many other American cities. Houston, well, it feels like Houston, or as I like to think of it, a slightly different version of Atlanta.
 
Last edited:
The gap in population between Montreal and Vancouver CMA's is actually slightly more than the gap between Calgary and Vancouver CMA's in absolute numbers.

The problem for Vancouver is land. For it to keep growing without prices suppressing growth it has to get really dense...and that requires cultural changes and expectations on housing sizes to change and that being implemented into policy.

I don't know if Calgary will ever catch up to Vancouver but it's going to be able to offer more for less. So on a long enough timeline maybe.

Something that will come sooner imo will be Alberta overtaking BC in population.
 
Last edited:
The gap between Montreal and Vancouver is large, but I still think Vancouver has a chance to overtake Montreal someday. Based mainly on the that Vancouver's growth doesn't seem to ever slow down, whereas Montreal's growth over the past 30 years has been inconsistent. In saying that, I'm also saying there's a chance for it to happen, but I'm not necessarily expecting it to happen, but I think even if it doesn't pass Montreal someday, it'll narrow the gap. This is based on the solid growth of Vancouver over the past 30 years, but as people have mentioned, Vancouver has a land issue, and who knows, we might see a different trend in the future.
 
I with your post agree for the most part. The only thing I would disagree with is the comparison of Calgary to Houston or Edmonton to Austin. From my experience neither city is comparable to either Austin or Houston. As someone who grew up in Toronto and southern Ontario, I see Calgary and Edmonton as far more similar to each other than they are to any American city.
I think people often compare Calgary to Houston because of both cities having oil company head offices but outside of that there are few if any similarities. Austin was probably more comparable to Calgary or Edmonton 20 years ago, but nowadays it feels more like a mini Houston, or like many other American cities. Houston, well, it feels like Houston, or as I like to think of it, a slightly different version of Atlanta.
Calgarians and Edmontonians will often micro pick at the differences between the two cities, but in reality, they are quite similar. Especially when comparing to American cities, or even cities in Eastern Canada. Out of the three second tier cities in Canada (Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa), Calgary and Edmonton are the most alike. Employment demographics are somewhat different between Edmonton and Calgary, but not majorly different, and other demographics, such as age and ethnicities are quite similar. The cities even have a lot of the same look and feel when comparing to cities like Hamilton or Ottawa.
I tend to agree about the assessment of Calgary/Edmonton Houston/Austin. I've never felt like Calgary or Edmonton are much like those cities. Us Canadians always like to make comparisons to American cities, but I've never felt much similarities other than maybe visual. From a purely visual comparison, Edmonton's geography and skyline reminds me of Austin, and Calgary geography and skyline reminds me of Denver.
 

Back
Top