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.
Well 4 million is very plausible. It has been done on several occasions within a decade or two although it is unlikely to take that short amount of time. LA could pass NYC in 30 years at this point but that is extreme growth from LA or just general stagnation from New York.
When has that ever happened before? I’m talking about city limits. LA and NY are the only 2 cities that even have 4 Million people, and LA just barely. It would take any extremely unrealistic, unprecedented growth in LA, and NYC would need to be completely stagnant or decline. But anyone that is familiar with what’s going on in NYC right now knows that’s not looking likely at all.
If you’re talking about MSA, it’s a 7 Million difference. And again LA MSA would need to see insane growth while NYC MSA would somehow need to lose lots of people or just stop growing. On the MSA level, NYC is still taking in more people than LA, it’s only on the CSA level LA is taking in a little bit more, but it’s a pretty narrow margin. CSA is also not known to be the best metric around here on CD.
Last edited by That_One_Guy; 03-10-2018 at 04:20 PM..
Reason: I can’t spell
I voted for Toronto, because while LA is closer in terms of population, NYC's current status is number 2 GDP in the world. LA culturally is significant too, but to put pressure on the second most important city in the world as far as economy goes and arguably most important city all around, not likely. Montreal on the other hand as well as Vancouver serve different functions in Canada than Toronto in my eyes, and while they can't take over they can definitely pressure Toronto in terms of certain things. Mexico isn't even debatable, unless Monterey switched populations with Guadalajara and kept the same GDP per capita, would it ever come close to pressuring Mexico City.
Well sure - any city can 'pressure' another if the criteria is mated to a specific strength. Generally when we speak of these things it is GDP or overall economy and Population/growth. Otherwise it becomes way too subjective like - well Toronto could pressure Montreal on Haitian or Moroccan immigrant growth. Unlikely as those groups are more attracted to Montreal from a language/cultural p.o.v but it could always 'happen' - it is wishy washy stuff like that where we could get into a billion subjective arguments on 'challenging' other cities.
I think the same can be said for all of these cities. And out of all these cities, I think that New York is most likely to see something like this happen. We’re also probably the largest targets for terrorist attacks too. NYC is no stranger to catastrophic events. With Toronto it seems to be a matter of “what if” something crazy happens where in NYC it’s more of when is the next thing going to happen, and how bad is it going to be this time? I think the most obvious long term disaster for us would be rising sea levels.
I think Toronto is easily, by far the safest of these 3 when it comes to these kinds of things.
LA MSA did grow by a larger percentage, but it’s <1% difference. It’s easy to look at percentages alone, but sometimes raw numbers can tell a different story. It’s easy to see that NYC only grew by 3%, and that looks small until you realize that you’re talking about 3% of 20 Million. If you look at it that way, NYC MSA still sees a higher growth in raw numbers. 3% of 20 Million is larger than 3.75% of 13 Million.
Austin TX MSA for example grew by almost 20%, yet still saw less in raw numbers than both LA and NYC
Toronto seems to be widening its lead without a doubt, but it’s lead is fairly new and not even really that large. NYC’s lead is much larger and much more established. Not that I think either city’s will lose their lead, at least in our life times.
All that being said though, I am leaning towards NYC just due to the likelihood of catastrophic events alone.
You make good points and there is no right or wrong answer here - it really depends on what you're looking at. I was just saying that L.A MSA is growing at a faster rate than NYC MSA. That is not the case with Toronto and Montreal. Also, a 2.2 million advantage that Toronto's CMA has over Montreal is HUGE given the fact that Toronto is also growing double that of Montreal yoy. NYC is certainly not growing in any manner over L.A similar to what Toronto is over Montreal - growth rate/absolute terms etc.
We also have to be realistic about Montreal as well. Toronto is now the main English speaking city in a predominantly English speaking country(27.5 million English to 8.5 million French). Montreal can do very well by itself as a large francophone city that attracts immigrants around the world from francophone countries. That said, the vast majority of immigrants to Canada are not francophone and the composition of that won't be changing in the future either in all likelihood. Montreal has also not always been significantly larger that Toronto. Toronto was actually growing faster than Montreal as early as the late 1940's early 1950's. The two were actually quite close in terms of population even at the turn of the 20th century. These were both highly established cities in Canada since the mid 1800's actually so it wasn't like T.O was some sunbelt city that just sort of gobbled up immigrants/migrants from the 60's on - T.O was already very established in the Canadian context.
I was also looking at Toronto's metro population in U.S terms. It is the only city in Canada that would actually benefit using U.S Census Bureau criteria for metro populations in any appreciable way vs other Canadian cities. The reason is because there are a lot of highly populated satellite cities with transit and economic connectivity close to the Toronto CMA that are not counted in T.O's metro using Canadian measures which would be using U.S measures. Montreal has some but not nearly as many as what you'd find in the horseshoe. There is nothing in Canada that comes close the horseshoe in terms of population and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe
Imagine what the population of NYC MSA/CSA would need to be to account for 21 percent of the U.S' population. As for catastrophic events - let's hope that never happens in any of our cities!!
You make good points and there is no right or wrong answer here - it really depends on what you're looking at. I was just saying that L.A MSA is growing at a faster rate than NYC MSA. That is not the case with Toronto and Montreal. Also, a 2.2 million advantage that Toronto's CMA has over Montreal is HUGE given the fact that Toronto is also growing double that of Montreal yoy. NYC is certainly not growing in any manner over L.A similar to what Toronto is over Montreal - growth rate/absolute terms etc.
We also have to be realistic about Montreal as well. Toronto is now the main English speaking city in a predominantly English speaking country(27.5 million English to 8.5 million French). Montreal can do very well by itself as a large francophone city that attracts immigrants around the world from francophone countries. That said, the vast majority of immigrants to Canada are not francophone and the composition of that won't be changing in the future either in all likelihood. Montreal has also not always been significantly larger that Toronto. Toronto was actually growing faster than Montreal as early as the late 1940's early 1950's. The two were actually quite close in terms of population even at the turn of the 20th century. These were both highly established cities in Canada since the mid 1800's actually so it wasn't like T.O was some sunbelt city that just sort of gobbled up immigrants/migrants from the 60's on - T.O was already very established in the Canadian context.
I was also looking at Toronto's metro population in U.S terms. It is the only city in Canada that would actually benefit using U.S Census Bureau criteria for metro populations in any appreciable way vs other Canadian cities. The reason is because there are a lot of highly populated satellite cities with transit and economic connectivity close to the Toronto CMA that are not counted in T.O's metro using Canadian measures which would be using U.S measures. Montreal has some but not nearly as many as what you'd find in the horseshoe. There is nothing in Canada that comes close the horseshoe in terms of population and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe
Imagine what the population of NYC MSA/CSA would need to be to account for 21 percent of the U.S' population. As for catastrophic events - let's hope that never happens in any of our cities!!
Montréal was still the former première city in Canada. It was it and destined to keep it .... but for a correction or miscalculation (depending how you see it today by todays perspective).
That being the "Separatist Movement" in the 70s. ALL WAS MONTRÉAL'S to loose. That Top tiered Canadian institutions status ... it did as the banking sector and other economic sectors. High-tailed it to Toronto. That gave Toronto the HUGE boost it needed. It was like much that was in NYC hightailed it to Chicago.
Both were growing then. Whether Toronto was a bit faster then? Still would have NOT changed Montréal's première city of Canada status pre-mid 70s when the great migration south to Ontario of Canada's key institutions to Toronto occurred in fear of a independent Québec.
Toronto of course was in a great position at the time to run with its gift and never looked back, or have reason to see it came easy... but it sort of did. Canada immigration policy clearly provided the educated immigrants chosen by necessary skills Canada sees as desirable.
As you said before. Matters not how it gained the glory.... but it took it on and still running strong. US cities should take more notice.
As for a catastrophic event? If to NYC it would be certainly a blow and effect the US for sure. But other cities in the US clearly could take up the challenge of what is necessary. Most likely not just one city gains it all. If Mexico City probably more devastating perhaps vs other cities taking up all necessary if a disaster occurred. Still Montréal has ALL the necessary bones to be up to any challenge if a city disaster happened to Toronto.
This is opinion on what historical happenings occurred in Canada in the mid-70s. Again... Toronto earned its position in taking what it gained that was Montréal's to loose in a short time and with its immigration. Had a golden-spoon ever since. Montréal though preserving its French culture certainly was no real looser either. Just too bad it couldn't have had both. Nothing against Toronto in my opinion and comment.
The population gap between NYC and LA is over 4.5 Million. That’s more than double LA’s current size of 4 Million. I don’t know if this is very realistic for our lifetimes. This would also be assuming that NYC somehow stays dormant, which is unlikely. I know LA is investing a lot in transit (which I love to see), but it would need to do so much more on the infrastructure front.
Idk, I think Metro NY might continue to grow, but I suspect that NYC city proper could stagnate or even lose a little population as it further gentrifies, as many gentrifying neighborhoods tend to lose density with gentrification.
I agree it would be a pretty big leap, but I could easily live another half century so who knows.
Montréal was still the former première city in Canada. It was it and destined to keep it .... but for a correction or miscalculation (depending how you see it today by todays perspective).
That being the "Separatist Movement" in the 70s. ALL WAS MONTRÉAL'S to loose. That Top tiered Canadian institutions status ... it did as the banking sector and other economic sectors. High-tailed it to Toronto. That gave Toronto the HUGE boost it needed. It was like much that was in NYC hightailed it to Chicago.
Both were growing then. Whether Toronto was a bit faster then? Still would have NOT changed Montréal's première city of Canada status pre-mid 70s when the great migration south to Ontario of Canada's key institutions to Toronto occurred in fear of a independent Québec.
I would never dismiss that the separatist movement sped up Toronto's ascension but like anything - it is usually a series of events that happen that results in an outcome. The separatist mvt for example spoke nothing of economic expansion westward. It spoke nothing of the Toronto stock exchange. It spoke nothing of Toronto's ability to attract a greater number of immigrants. It spoke nothing to a shift in lines of communications. All these things would have happened regardless of the separatist movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Toronto of course was in a great position at the time to run with its gift and never looked back, or have reason to see it came easy... but it sort of did. Canada immigration policy clearly provided the educated immigrants chosen by necessary skills Canada sees as desirable.
As you said before. Matters not how it gained the glory.... but it took it on and still running strong. US cities should take more notice.
As I said, a series of events occurred that resulted in Toronto's ascension - not a single one. Read about aircraft crash investigations. You'll never see ONE event causing the crash - it is a series of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
As for a catastrophic event? If to NYC it would be certainly a blow and effect the US for sure. But other cities in the US clearly could take up the challenge of what is necessary. Most likely not just one city gains it all. If Mexico City probably more devastating perhaps vs other cities taking up all necessary if a disaster occurred. Still Montréal has ALL the necessary bones to be up to any challenge if a city disaster happened to Toronto.
Well let us hope a catastrophic event does not occur. I would say Mexico City is at the largest threat because of active earthquakes not just throughout its history, but in recent times tens of thousands of people have died. Toronto is probably the 'safest' bet that nothing will happen natural and man made. The separatist movement has also simmered down and we don't see a mass exodus from Toronto do we? No so I think this underscores what I am saying is that it wasn't just one event that resulted in Toronto's rise and those events are still at play keeping Toronto where it is and it is a whole lot more than one thing you keep focusing on for whatever reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
This is opinion on what historical happenings occurred in Canada in the mid-70s. Again... Toronto earned its position in taking what it gained that was Montréal's to loose in a short time and with its immigration. Had a golden-spoon ever since. Montréal though preserving its French culture certainly was no real looser either. Just too bad it couldn't have had both. Nothing against Toronto in my opinion and comment.
Your summary of events is simply not accurate. There were a series of 'events' not 'gifts' that occurred that resulted in Toronto's ascension. This has occurred throughout history with any number of cities. Toronto is no more at an advantage than any of them. Also, has it ever occurred to you that what happened in Montreal is how they wanted it? If Montreal opened the floodgates to immigration as Toronto did, what people appreciate about Montreal today may not exist or would have been incredibly diluted. The decision was made. Did it benefit Toronto - well yes but it certainly was a series of events and at this point, It really is no longer a material discussion and won't change anything.
I would definitely go with Toronto in this poll. To me both Toronto and Montreal still seem fairly comparable. I think it would be hard to say that about NYC and any other American city, or Mexico city and others in Mexico.
Even if Montreal isn't considered the premier city in Canada anymore, it was in the not too distant past, and some might argue that it is still just as much if not more of an historic and cultural hub in Canada, pretty much standing on its own as a fairly unique world class city.
Even if Montreal isn't considered the premier city in Canada anymore, it was in the not too distant past, and some might argue that it is still just as much if not more of an historic and cultural hub in Canada, pretty much standing on its own as a fairly unique world class city.
In terms of Quebec and French Canadian culture sure - Montreal is far more important as the cultural centre of Quebec. For Canada at large and English Canada not as much. If you look at federal cultural arts funding, Toronto still gets the most and if you look at economic indicators in the cultural industry - Toronto is at the top. As a matter of fact, Toronto has 93% more artists in it than any other city in Canada. Where Toronto lags is in municipal funding for the arts which is lower on a per capita basis than other large Canadian cities. That said, in overall cultural funding ie accounting for Provincial and Federal funding and the overall cultural economy - as a city Toronto is still at the top.
I'd also argue that as a media hub - Toronto's is more national in focus ie CBC English language master control point and the Globe and Mail - Canada's most read national newspaper.
I didn't vote because I honestly don't know. I think it's unlikely that any of these cities will be overtaken by the sunset of the century. I mean, Los Angeles' growth has really slowed compared to what it used to be, and there is just not much room to grow. It already has turned into a net exporter of people domestically. Unless it experiences rapid densification and has a commensurate growth in economy, I just don't see it happening.
Montreal - I don't know - it's growing more slowly than Toronto so absent a dramatic shift, it's hard to imagine Montreal overtaking Toronto. Vancouver is just 1/4 the size of Toronto (city) and about 40% the size of Toronto metro, but it has momentum. However, the chance of a major offshore earthquake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone before the end of the century is very good, and that will cause widespread destruction across the Pacific Northwest, including in Vancouver. That will be a major hiccup for Vancouver at the very least.
Mexico City seems heads and shoulders above its competition in Mexico though I'm not as familiar with demographics there.
Absent a major catastrophic event afflicting these 3 top dogs, or a major demographic shift, I can't imagine any of them losing their spot by 2100. Then again, anything is possible.
I don't think it's very likely at all for any of the three North American countries. The factors that went in to making Mexico City, Toronto, and NYC what they aren't likely to repeat themselves in the future.
The only way it could happen is through some sort of massive annexation that would be seen as patently ridiculous. For example, the city that could it's way in theory to being larger than NYC is Los Angeles (it isn't at all politically viable) and they would have to annex most of Los Angeles county's 4058 square miles.
So yeah, I don't think it's likely at all.
What is more likely though is that something catastrophic happens that causes people to leave one of those cities en masse, thus causing the second largest city in that country to become #1.
This is something that many get wrong! Of the 4058 square miles in L.A. County only 1/3rd of it is actually inhabited. If you simply doubled the size or even triple the size of L.A. City LImits then you have a city that has more people than NYC. L.A. is very evenly urban throughout the metro many suburbs are just as dense if not more dense. More than 13 million people live in the 1736 miles of urban L.A..
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.
US cities should take more notice. 