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.
I understand that there are many areas of Canada that are harder (not impossible) to develop that require more money but there are also large areas of the country that are mostly empty that are quite easy to develop and we could easily put millions more people. Take for example the corridor from Winnipeg to Calgary? If you've ever driven the Trans-Canada like I have you'll know that's it is mostly flat with only a few small towns and cities between them. There is no Canadian Shield, no Muskeg and no permafrost here. It's just flat farmland for hundreds of kilometres. You could put several large cities there with lots of room to spare. Winnipeg could easily have 5 million just like Harbin but as I said there is no appetite to do this in this country. For those who say that this would eat up all our good farmland, not if we build the cities intelligently with high density instead of the wasteful sprawling suburbia. We could even make these new cities carbon neutral by using renewables to power it and have solar panels and green spaces on all the roofs.
There are so many destitute people in the world that we could help. I think Canada can do much more and I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes to help my fellow human beings on this planet. We are all in this together.
What you are suggesting requires a massive economic boom. No way raising tax dollars will do what you think it will. You need big time investors. You basically need to convince some oil guys or energy guys to invest billions of there money into it. The reason why no one has done it is because Canada is probably not worth investing in. We'll at least that part anyway.
What you are suggesting requires a massive economic boom. No way raising tax dollars will do what you think it will. You need big time investors. You basically need to convince some oil guys or energy guys to invest billions of there money into it. The reason why no one has done it is because Canada is probably not worth investing in. We'll at least that part anyway.
Yep like I said before. Canada is the land of the status quo where nobody wants to do anything different than before or think outside the box.
Yep like I said before. Canada is the land of the status quo where nobody wants to do anything different than before or think outside the box.
You can either get investors to do so or come up with the billions on your own. Others have done it in other countries. It can be done in canada. But if you are that rich you are likely based in america. And would have to love canada a heck of a lot to invest that much money when you could probably easily make more on other places/investments.
Oh, give it a rest. We all have high hopes for this country. And believe it or not, I DON'T think he has bad ideas. I'm just showing him the challenges involved and WHY it hasn't been done to date. He makes it sound like a "Wha? Why not? We got all this land. Just do it!".
I don't even want to know how many 10's of trillions of dollars that we don't have this plan would cost.
Do some of the people in here advocating for this crap even pay their own rent - I'm really starting to wonder..
It hasn't been done because Canada doesn't have the money. Nor does it have the ideas to raise that money to build it. Canadians like you think it's simply impossible. Which definitely makes it impossible. At least the American fought for how it can be done. While Canadians argue why it can't. I understand why he thinks Canadians have a can't do attitude. Cuz well you prove it. It's why america will always be more powerful. They didn't always have the biggest population. It was smaller than canada is now. They just took unknown lands and made it a super power. Them Americans always find a way to get what they want. It's pretty inspiring.
You're constant P envy of the U.S is nauseating lol... Americans wouldn't be investing trillions of dollars to build cities with challenges that simply don't warrant or justify such an expense when there are far more inhabitable places to invest.. Who the hell would want to build a Las Vegas somewhere in the tundra?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karassmatic
What you are suggesting requires a massive economic boom. No way raising tax dollars will do what you think it will. You need big time investors. You basically need to convince some oil guys or energy guys to invest billions of there money into it. The reason why no one has done it is because Canada is probably not worth investing in. We'll at least that part anyway.
Not even your vaulted U.S is doing what Deneb is suggesting... Canada takes in more immigrants/refugees than the U.S does when looking at it from the perspective of annual average inflow as a percent of population.. As a matter of fact immigrant inflow as a percent of population in Canada is 0.8 percent vs 0.4 percent in the U.S..
Where are all the investors there?? Here you love quoting Forbes so here you go just for you - read the whole thing
There are so many destitute people in the world that we could help. I think Canada can do much more and I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes to help my fellow human beings on this planet. We are all in this together.
Well even if Canada had the immigrant inflow rates as a percent of population like that of Luxembourg or Spain (1.3 percent each as opposed to our 0.8 percent), there still wouldn't be any justification to build new cities in the middle of nowhere. You'd simply densify and build in the cities you have.. With that said, I think you're on your own if you advocate raising taxes... As someone who pays almost 2 grand in taxes a month I think that is moooooooooooorrrree than enough thanks much..
You're constant P envy of the U.S is nauseating lol... Americans wouldn't be investing trillions of dollars to build cities with challenges that simply don't warrant or justify such an expense when there are far more inhabitable places to invest.. Who the hell would want to build a Las Vegas somewhere in the tundra?
Not even your vaulted U.S is doing what Deneb is suggesting... Canada takes in more immigrants/refugees than the U.S does when looking at it from the perspective of annual average inflow as a percent of population.. As a matter of fact immigrant inflow as a percent of population in Canada is 0.8 percent vs 0.4 percent in the U.S..
Where are all the investors there?? Here you love quoting Forbes so here you go just for you - read the whole thing
Exactly it's not worth it for a rich person to invest in canada. Not saying it can't be done. It's not worth it go a wealthy person. To invest in a piece of ice. Which is most of canada. And how is it p envy when it's the truth? Usa can easily build it up if they wanted. It's canafa that doesn't have the money. No the us.
I understand that there are many areas of Canada that are harder (not impossible) to develop that require more money but there are also large areas of the country that are mostly empty that are quite easy to develop and we could easily put millions more people. Take for example the corridor from Winnipeg to Calgary? If you've ever driven the Trans-Canada like I have you'll know that's it is mostly flat with only a few small towns and cities between them. There is no Canadian Shield, no Muskeg and no permafrost here. It's just flat farmland for hundreds of kilometres. You could put several large cities there with lots of room to spare. Winnipeg could easily have 5 million just like Harbin but as I said there is no appetite to do this in this country. For those who say that this would eat up all our good farmland, not if we build the cities intelligently with high density instead of the wasteful sprawling suburbia. We could even make these new cities carbon neutral by using renewables to power it and have solar panels and green spaces on all the roofs.
There are so many destitute people in the world that we could help. I think Canada can do much more and I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes to help my fellow human beings on this planet. We are all in this together.
Hey I totally get what you are suggesting (and I wish it were possible), but in reality it is just not realistic. Countries and cities usually grow organically, and it is just wishful thinking to build large cities from scratch.
First, you can't expect to make the investment, and people would come. Plenty of evidences show that it doesn't work that way. Most people are risk averse, and they would always move to cities and towns that were more and less established or which they have a connection with, because that gives them the comfort of securing a stable life. If you had to move to a different country, would you decide to move to a government purposed built city (assuming it has all the infrastructure) that doesn't have any track record of success? City building is a lengthy and complicated process, and it is naïve to think if I build a fantastic city between Calgary and Winnipeg, people will live there. Are you going to force them to go there?
Empirically, you don't see big cities appear overnight. Just look at the US, most of its population still live on both coasts, and the Northeastern US despite its bad weather still hold 56 million on a relatively small area. In France, which has twice the population of France, Paris and Ile de France still dominants, with the second largest city Lyon having only 2 million people in the metropolitan area; even in congested China, population still congregated in the east coast, despite the government's repeated effort to entice people to live in the hinterland. City building is not SimCity where you can arbitrarily decide to make more cities. New cities do appear, but that is based on many factors, mostly economic ones, and it usually take a long time to happen. It is not a matter of where the government plans to invest its money.
For a country like Canada, chances are that most growth will still happen a few metropolitan areas, such as the GTA, Alberta (not sure with the current energy market), and many here and there in other provinces. Nothing dramatic will happen, and no place will be able to challenge Toronto in the next 50 years, or ever.
I totally agree Canada *can* have "millions", if not tens of millions of more people, as you correctly pointed out that there is so much land (and resources). I once said Canada should have 100m or 120m, and I stand by that conclusion. But that only means the country has such *potential*, not that it needs to happen in 10 years, which will be ridiculous.
I don't buy this "good farmland" argument either by the way. Canada is not an agricultural country (it accounts for 1.7% of GDP, and I think it is stupid for the government to provide massive subsidy to farmers every year just so they can survive. I honestly don't know why many people love their "good farmland" so much.
Yep like I said before. Canada is the land of the status quo where nobody wants to do anything different than before or think outside the box.
It is largely true, but it is also true for almost anywhere else. The majority of people anywhere in the world has this "don't change the status quo" mentality because they fear change and uncertainty.
If you think countries like the US aren't like that, then you are hugely romanticizing it. Every country struggles with its own individual issues and how to deal with it given the priorities, constraints and politics there are - didn't you see how frustrated Obama is about the gun control issues? He is the damn president and can't even prevent innocent civilians from being killed in mindless massacres on a weekly basis.
It would need a very strong authoritarian government like China to push forward huge reforms and dramatic changes like what you envisioned. In a matter of 8 years, it went from having no high speed rail at all to boasting the world's largest system, actually more than the rest of the world's high-speed rail tracks combined. This is less time than what it takes Toronto to just talking about that pipe dream Yonge relief subway line, or the total time to construct the Eglinton light rail. I don't think things like that will happen in Canada because it is a different system. The US has been talking about their first high speed train for how long? And you would think it makes perfect sense in its Northeast or California, but it still takes more than 10 hours to travel from LA to SF by train.
It is not about nobody wants to do anything different. Just look at many of the urban issue related forums. Many people do, but many don't, and the government needs to make everyone happy, or at least not upset anyone too much because they need to remain in power. Therefore, these things can't happen as fast as what you would want it to.
Do some of the people in here advocating for this crap even pay their own rent - I'm really starting to wonder..
It's easy to claim to want to pay higher taxes when you don't pay any currently, and have no expenses either.
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.
