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.
Like... HOW else do you respond to this except for
It confounds the rational as to why anyone would think poaching of population for the sole purpose of claiming a greater footprint is thought of at all by any Canadian to ANY extent.
Like... HOW else do you respond to this except for
that was a pretty stupid post.
Why does cities fairly competing with each other consistute "stealing"? If that's cases, I do hope Toronto will steal more from Chicago, Boston or whatever.
I am very optimistic about YYZ. Fare is competitive and destinations are plenty. And the airport itself is much nicer than most of the competitors. Plus the UPe really makes airport travel so much easier than before. Now they just need to have more shops (I know they are already doing it) to make it a more interesting experience for people with long layovers. If you compare YYZ with IST (not to mention LHR) for example, a lot is still lacking.
Why does cities fairly competing with each other consistute "stealing"? If that's cases, I do hope Toronto will steal more from Chicago, Boston or whatever.
I am very optimistic about YYZ. Fare is competitive and destinations are plenty. And the airport itself is much nicer than most of the competitors. Plus the UPe really makes airport travel so much easier than before. Now they just need to have more shops (I know they are already doing it) to make it a more interesting experience for people with long layovers. If you compare YYZ with IST (not to mention LHR) for example, a lot is still lacking.
I mentioned UPe in my transit response to your post In the other thread. The airport has recognized that compared to other global cities (i'm not talking about in the U.S where transit ridership is low minus NYC), that YYZ is not optimally served by transit. Only about 10 percent of pax/employees at YYZ use PT.. Other global non American cities that is much higher. Some upwards of 50 percent use PT. The GTAA is responding on its own to this as they see this as a impediment to it expanding its global hub strategy.
Just like Transit investment in the GTA as a whole - I don't think this is just lip service. Toronto is at a defining moment in its history unlike at any point before, there isn't enough luxury for endless studies so try not to be so dour.
As for shops and other development, I think that those gaps have been closed relative to where they were in the past. The GTAA has done A LOT to address these things over the last 5 years since Eng and I think that will continue. Unlike the government , the GTAA actually does things pretty quickly and is very quick to adapt to changing environments.
I mentioned UPe in my transit response to your post In the other thread. The airport has recognized that compared to other global cities (i'm not talking about in the U.S where transit ridership is low minus NYC), that YYZ is not optimally served by transit. Only about 10 percent of pax/employees at YYZ use PT.. Other global non American cities that is much higher. Some upwards of 50 percent use PT. The GTAA is responding on its own to this as they see this as a impediment to it expanding its global hub strategy.
Just like Transit investment in the GTA as a whole - I don't think this is just lip service. Toronto is at a defining moment in its history unlike at any point before, there isn't enough luxury for endless studies so try not to be so dour.
As for shops and other development, I think that those gaps have been closed relative to where they were in the past. The GTAA has done A LOT to address these things over the last 5 years since Eng and I think that will continue. Unlike the government , the GTAA actually does things pretty quickly and is very quick to adapt to changing environments.
I read that artcle and it was great news.
Yes, Toronto should stop looking at American cities and comparing itself to them. Whether we are better or worse is irrelevant and meaningless, because Americans cities are a very low bar in such issues. It is like we don't compare our economy with Tanzania or Indonesia.
Look at Europe for inspiration. Yes, history is different blah blah, but that should cease to be excuses. Look at cities such as Madrid and Berlin and learn from those cities.
I know you didn't like the building form of Barcelona that much, but I was amazed by their street design, how their roads were fairly shared among cars, buses/trams, bikes and pedestrians. In Toronto, we don't even have a bus lane as far as I know. So a bus with 50 people in it are often stuck on the street just because a single occupancy car needs to make a turn. Blows my mind.
Yes, Toronto should stop looking at American cities and comparing itself to them. Whether we are better or worse is irrelevant and meaningless, because Americans cities are a very low bar in such issues. It is like we don't compare our economy with Tanzania or Indonesia.
Look at Europe for inspiration. Yes, history is different blah blah, but that should cease to be excuses. Look at cities such as Madrid and Berlin and learn from those cities.
I know you didn't like the building form of Barcelona that much, but I was amazed by their street design, how their roads were fairly shared among cars, buses/trams, bikes and pedestrians. In Toronto, we don't even have a bus lane as far as I know. So a bus with 50 people in it are often stuck on the street just because a single occupancy car needs to make a turn. Blows my mind.
I think this is finally a post I can agree with you fully upon. The reason I hit Barcelona hard about those octagonal buildings is because I really do think they aren't pleasant to look at and are extraordinarily repetitive. This doesn't mean they aren't functional or even aren't urban. I've actually stayed in a few Airbnb's in those and what they lack in looks they make up for in city planning and urbanism. There is also nice courtyards with playgrounds for kids to play in within practically each one and that is great. They are sort of like self contained communities. On the street it works and even though there is high density, there is also a very neighbourhood feel to them.
Toronto could learn a lot from BCN but you'll never see the Victorian and Edwardian heritage of Old Toronto razed in favour of BCN urbanism. That won't happen ever - BUT if we make more streets transit and pedestrian friendly that is something we can push towards. These are things citizens in our city can do and we have the power to influence. We can also push for 'gentle' density developments in the suburbs that are also more transit and neighbourhood friendly instead of endless condo's in the park development that encourage automobile transportation.. I'm Ok with tall scrapers in the DT core - as long as they don't tear down heritage stuff. There are still enough crappy buildings and parking lots in the core to develop and the core should always be a place of high density and energy.
Generally, a thread is difficult to read unless you stay with the OP's topic.
The OP expressed concern that Canada would follow Sweden and Germany with being overrun with "refugees and migrants".
I did point out that Canada has a higher percentage of "foreign born" (i.e. migrants) than either Sweden and Germany and also the USA (even if you factor in the generally accepted 11 million illegal immigrants).
Canada does accept about 1/4 million new immigrants every year, which proportionately is much higher percentage of the population than the 1 million legal immigrants accepted in the USA. The USA has roughly 9X the population of Canada.
Someone suggested that I was missing the OP's point, as immigrants are not the same as refugees. I would like to say that it is difficult to put a firm label on that claim. Many of the 46 million "foreign born" in the USA (back to WWII) are leaving a war torn country.
I don't know how many of the 11 million illegal immigrants are refugees of war. I suspect not that many. About 60% come from Mexico and another 15% come from Central America. An additional 10% come from Asia. The remaining 15% come from Caribbean and Africa or the Middle East.
The biggest difference between immigration in Germany and immigration in Canada is usually the quality of immigrants. Canada usually accepts high-skilled people, based on education, language knowledge, work experience and money avaliable to fund their life during the first couple of months. Germany does it the other way around - usually accepting low-skilled people, with no or little education, no german language skills, no relevant work experience for german industries. And then they are surprised, that this is a burden for the taxpayer and crime rates do rocket to the sky.
It is not that Canada will be the next Germany or Sweden, but it would be more than great if Europeans would adopt the Canadian immigration system, based on actual people needed in the country. (high potentials). Why should the tax payer educate people, train people and provide for their living, when one could just chose the people who got all this already?
Someone suggested that I was missing the OP's point, as immigrants are not the same as refugees. I would like to say that it is difficult to put a firm label on that claim.
How is it difficult to tell the difference??
Immigrants (legal ones of course) are those who the countries ACTIVELY seek and deliberately try to attract as a major policy to tackle with population/labour challenges (at least for Canada/Australia, less so for America because 90% are family based), based on what they can offer to the hosting country. Not only these people are highly welcome and needed, the host countries need to compete with others in order for them to choose this country and not others. Accepting immigrants is NOT a favour, but a mutually benefiting thing.
Refugees are completely different. They are accepted out of humanitarian concerns, out of pity, and because if nobody accepts them, they might end up dead. They are not chosen by the hosting countries based on what they can contribute. It is not based on a cost-beneift analysis and a strict screening process to determine whether a newcommer is qualified. It is a favour.
I have no problem with any country choosing to accept immigrants or not (and won't call those who don't xenophobic). However, let's be crystal clear that accepting immigrants is by no means a favour. For example I thank Canada for letting me come to Canada, and Canada should also thank me to choose it and be a contributing taxpayer. If I had only a high school degree, Canada wouldn't have let me in.
In fact, the local born people have more in common with refugees than the immigrants. Why, because no matter now bad the native born are, drug addicts, anti-socials, murderers, or regular losers, the countries HAVE to keep them and take care of them, with no choice but obligation. The countries don't have the choice of choosing its local people, yet they get to choose immigrants based nothing but pure merit.
Clear?
Last edited by botticelli; 04-02-2017 at 10:16 AM..
... (at least for Canada/Australia, less so for America because 90% are family based)
...
Clear?
Actually, that was very articulate. I actually did not know that Canada did not accept most immigrants based on family already living in the country (like the USA). I sort of assumed that policy was similar.
So I learned something today.
I looked at the US census bureau projections for the next 33 years for USA and Canada. The demographics are strikingly different. USA has 9X the population of Canada.
Currently Canada has 57K more births than deaths, but 2050 it is expected to have 128K more deaths than births. So immigration will keep population growing at a reasonable rate.
Currently USA has 1385K more births than deaths, but 2050 it is expected to have 323K more births than deaths. So the population is growing even without immigration
Population - Births - Deaths - Net Number Of Migrants - Natural Increase - Growth
35,623,680 365,143 308,145 202,343 +56,998 259,340
41,135,648 399,427 527,359 224,601 -127,932 96,669
....
326,625,791 4,066,491 2,681,598 1,257,509 1,384,893 2,642,403
398,328,349 4,413,478 4,090,832 1,473,815 322,646 1,796,461
Last edited by PacoMartin; 04-02-2017 at 10:03 AM..
Actually, that was very articulate. I actually did not know that Canada did not accept most immigrants based on family already living in the country (like the USA). I sort of assumed that policy was similar.
So I learned something today.
Yes, more than 70% of immigrants are skill based for both Canada and Australia. This is why immigration is improving these countries.
In contrary, only 10% of legal immigrants to the US are based on skills, while the vast majority being family based and refugees. This has been like this for many years. Once a person is an American citizen, she can sponsor a whole bunch of relatives from her home country to the US, brothers and sisters, uncles, uncles' sons and daughters, irrespectively of their education and skills. It takes a long time (sometimes 10 to 20 years), but many people start the process as soon as they can and eventually they get to enter the US, and then the cycle restarts (they start to sponsor more family). I am not even counting the illegals which didn't go through a screening process.
While a phD in science who graduated in Canada finds it easy and quick to become a Canadian permenant resident, the same person in America often struggles for years for a green card, competing with illegals.
In Canada as a landed immigrant You can bring your children and spouse. No siblings, nephews, uncles and their siblings, nephews and uncles. Even sponsoring parents is pretty strict.
Canada may have a higher foreign born, but that's probably a good thing, because most of those people went though a thorough screening process in determining whether they will be a net benefit to Canada in the future. In the US, not so much.
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.
