Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
City population is never a good way to measure size as Calgary has over 1 million within its city limits and not much more than that in its metro area, where as Vancouver has about 603,000 in the city and 2,135,000 in the metro area. So it qualifies as a big city (by Canadian standards), especially when compared to Halifax.
Canadians standards mean nothing.
By Canadian standards, even Brampton, Hamilton and Missisauga are large cities, but who the heck has heard about them?
A city with 2.1M metro population is NOT a "very large city" by any standards. Seattle has 3.4M and nobody considers it as a very large city. In fact, Vancouver is smaller than Denver (2.6M) or St Louis (2.8M), and the latter two are definitely NOT very large cities.
Back to Halifax, when I peruse the map again, honestly its location is not ideal at all. The comparison with Boston is not reasonable. As someone pointed out, from a shipping point of view, Quebec City is a much more convenient location be closer to the large market (Ontario and Quebec), while Halifax's location is awkward - you have to drive along the US border up north to get anywhere - just too isolated to function as a major city.
My grandmother's family moved from Nova Scotia to NYC in the 1920s. This might be completely wrong but I was always under the impression that southern Ontario had much better farmland so it was settled more densely from the beginning, industry developed early as a result and had an export-oriented economy for most of that period.
Thats a good point, the land in Nova scotia is not very good for agriculture. Quebec and Ontario have much better farmland.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
As a native Haligonian, I'll offer my nickel:
Fear of Change. Nova Scotians, for whatever reason, are extremely averse to change.
- Sunday shopping (finally introduced in mid-2000s, after years of tentative toe-testing) was fought tooth-and-nail by those who felt it would lead to societal ruination and complete family disintegration.
- Immigration is viewed as the last resort, not the salvation they desperately need.
- Out-of-towners and come-from-aways are often treated with apathetic disdain and sometimes outright hostility.
- Prominent undercurrent of racism and cultural ignorance (only white people deny this).
- No building in the downtown could be over a certain height, lest it block the view from Citadel Hill.
- There is a Heritage Society that has a HUGE influence on city development (and subsequent lack thereof). Their only job is to complain about anything that remotely resembles progress or forward-thinking vision.
NorthYorked is right. I also noticed this, Nova Scotians are very conservative in their way of thinking. Very narrow minded and small town thinking even in Halifax, a city that has several Universities. I lived there for 9 years. Nice city, but I could never live there again.
Canadians standards mean nothing.
By Canadian standards, even Brampton, Hamilton and Missisauga are large cities, but who the heck has heard about them?
A city with 2.1M metro population is NOT a "very large city" by any standards. Seattle has 3.4M and nobody considers it as a very large city. In fact, Vancouver is smaller than Denver (2.6M) or St Louis (2.8M), and the latter two are definitely NOT very large cities.
Back to Halifax, when I peruse the map again, honestly its location is not ideal at all. The comparison with Boston is not reasonable. As someone pointed out, from a shipping point of view, Quebec City is a much more convenient location be closer to the large market (Ontario and Quebec), while Halifax's location is awkward - you have to drive along the US border up north to get anywhere - just too isolated to function as a major city.
But this thread is about Halifax being small by CANADIAN standards. Can you refute that Vancouver is among Canada's largest cities and that Halifax is not?
I believe the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia may have the most fertile soil east of the Prairies. But it is a very small area.
Very good farmland indeed. And you made a point that it is a small area. It boils down to hinterland. The the bigger and more productive the hinterland is, the better chances there are of a port being bigger.
But this thread is about Halifax being small by CANADIAN standards. Can you refute that Vancouver is among Canada's largest cities and that Halifax is not?
Vancouver is one of the largest cities in Canada, but it is NOT a large city. See the difference here? Sorry for being so picky, but I just don't associate Vancouver with the idea of "large city".
A 5'5'' man can be the tallest among this tribe, but you still can't say he is a tall man.
Perhaps that is the case at this point. However, what was the tonnage in 1950, when Montreal was Canada's largest city?
Montreal's tonnage was probably quite a bit larger than Quebec's in 1950 because the St Lawrence Seaway hadn't been finished yet, so many ships couldn't go any further inland than Montreal.
Vancouver is one of the largest cities in Canada, but it is NOT a large city. See the difference here? Sorry for being so picky, but I just don't associate Vancouver with the idea of "large city".
A 5'5'' man can be the tallest among this tribe, but you still can't say he is a tall man.
But the OP was not talking about other cities across the world. He/she was talking about comparing Halifax to Montreal and Toronto. I added Vancouver to the mix because this is about Canadian cities and Vancouver is on the coast, as is Halifax. Can it be refuted that the OP was talking about Canadian cities? Can it be refuted that Vancouver is a large Canadian city and a large Canadian metropolitan area? That is what we are talking about, nothing else.
Montreal's tonnage was probably quite a bit larger than Quebec's in 1950 because the St Lawrence Seaway hadn't been finished yet, so many ships couldn't go any further inland than Montreal.
I suspected that Montreal might have had larger tonnage, however, I would not believe that ships couldn't go further. Ships used to go around the Windsor-Detroit corridor. The Detroit river was the busiest waterway in the world, and still one of the busiest in the world.
I suspected that Montreal might have had larger tonnage, however, I would not believe that ships couldn't go further. Ships used to go around the Windsor-Detroit corridor. The Detroit river was the busiest waterway in the world, and still one of the busiest in the world.
Obviously, it depends which types of ships you are talking about. Barges could reach Toronto, Detroit or Thunder Bay, but the largest ships could not, hence the St Lawrence Seaway was constructed. It's probably true that Detroit River is/was a very busy waterway but that doesn't imply its ships reached the ocean.
Tonnage statistics can be a bit misleading anyway as they can be heavily influenced by regional energy generation choices. In 2004 the port of Huntington, WV handled about 50% more tonnage than the Port of LA (source).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
