A bigger Canada?

[Second_in_pie]

I think there are 3 things that more immigration is a good idea to me. Firstly is increased density which translates to more things that require a density of scale. Bluntly, Canada with 34 million people spread across about a million square kilometers (most densely populated southern part of the country,) just can't support things like widespread rail networks, big theme parks, or a dense and welcoming countryside like the US, Europe, or China can. From a simple personal psychology and sociology of the entire country perspectives, I think that almost everyone would agree that it's a good thing.
Secondly would be for even better cultural diversity. Canada's already a hugely diverse country, but broadly across the country, there's still an obvious white majority. I think that by bringing in many more immigrants from around the world, they'll be able to compound together to bring specific cultural amenities that wouldn't be possible with smaller numbers of a certain ethnicity. So while we may have 2 channels of Spanish broadcasting, 2 of Punjab, 1 of Hindi, 5 of Cantonese, and 200 in English in the GTA, (warning: numbers pulled out of ass,) if we were to just have a lot more spanish, indian and chinese people, we'd have lots of broadcasting for everyone. And white people don't have to fear being drowned out, because there's still a large number of English speakers that'll be wanting english broadcasting, just as there are now. It'd improve the livelihoods of the immigrants that are already in the country and who would still be coming in the future, while current immigration levels might achieve that eventually but just more slowly.
And thirdly, using lots of growth as a kind of glue to wallpaper over all of our previous mistakes. Lots of new people living in the country will demand lots of social changes, new infrastructure, and figuring out new ways to support them. It might take more actual work than just wallpapering over those mistakes while keeping a relatively steady population, but I think it'll be much easier, socially and politically, to change in a high growth scenario. Not to mention that many, many of the immigrants that we'd be letting in are used to lives more in tune for what we should be shooting for; locally focused, low carbon footprint lifestyles. And once all the big work's done, we'll have a well adjusted and well functioning population of around 100 million, giving us points #1 and #2 with very little drawback 60 or 70 years in the future.

Though, I know there are many people that do want Canada to have more political, economic or military clout. I'm not one of those people, but it's a bone to throw to them in appeal. Though I think that if Canada was to accomplish social change towards more sustainable and enriching lifestyles (which it seems like Canada's at least trying to lead in now,) it'd be good to have more people to be able to get those ideas and values further engrained into the rest of the world, in the unfortunate but also unfortunately foreseeable event that things generally keep to the status quo.

EDIT: But you can at least see where I'm coming with this, right? There are obviously a bunch of public policy changes that'd need to occur, and a lot of work for the government to do/manage. But I think that it's a very plausible future for this country. If you can see the pros but feel that they're overshadowed by the cons, perhaps some discussion into fleshing out more pros or making the cons less of an issue is the way this thread should be going, no?

 

[LAz]

My last post in the topic was not a troll post. You clearly think that money comes out of our your know what... getting more people means having to build more infrastructure. Where's the money for that? Where? Not just infrastructure, but loads of things... see the points in the last post, points that are hard to dismiss.

Bluntly, Canada with 34 million people spread across about a million square kilometers (most densely populated southern part of the country,) just can't support things like widespread rail networks, big theme parks, or a dense and welcoming countryside like the US, Europe, or China can.

Oh boy. Do you even bother to look at those countries? They are in a warmer area. Hence they can support more people. We are in the north. If you want to compare us to other countries then I would suggest comparing us to norway, finland, or places like alaska or siberia.
We can not just spread out. It's hard to build up there, especially with all that permafrost and other things. On top of that there are these native places- yeah, lets push them off, is that what you think? Stuff like... oh... red niggers is what the hillbillies might call them - lets just move in on their reserves or territories... like cree territory in quebec, or other places.

would be for even better cultural diversity. Canada's already a hugely diverse country, but broadly across the country, there's still an obvious white majority. I think that by bringing in many more immigrants from around the world, they'll be able to compound together to bring specific cultural amenities that wouldn't be possible with smaller numbers of a certain ethnicity. So while we may have 2 channels of Spanish broadcasting, 2 of Punjab, 1 of Hindi, 5 of Cantonese, and 200 in English in the GTA, (warning: numbers pulled out of ass,) if we were to just have a lot more spanish, indian and chinese people, we'd have lots of broadcasting for everyone. And white people don't have to fear being drowned out, because there's still a large number of English speakers that'll be wanting english broadcasting, just as there are now. It'd improve the livelihoods of the immigrants that are already in the country and who would still be coming in the future, while current immigration levels might achieve that eventually but just more slowly.

That is really absurd, to want to "reduce the use of english". Goodluck with that, you'll need it ! You'll really need it, in fact, you'll need more than luck.

We can not bring in immigrants from all over the world anymore. What we are reduced to now is to take in the slumdwelers and peasants from places like latin america, africa, and india. Not to mention that they are not qualified in terms or skill or in terms of language.

But you can at least see where I'm coming with this, right?

Kinda like liberal nazis, wanting to expand, only this time it's more like internal expansion.

If you can see the pros but feel that they're overshadowed by the cons, perhaps some discussion into fleshing out more pros or making the cons less of an issue is the way this thread should be going, no?

Start by addressing the points in my previous post. I did my best not to bullshit it that post.



Oh man. Oh man, it's coming back... oh no... why must you do this man?? no....

Yo mon got tu understand that the white man does not like the black man ! Hereby it is bad to get more people in as it would promote race riots and segregated vertical ghetto complexes, of stuffing people into highrise towers adjacent to trash dumps.

 

[Second_in_pie]

]Oh boy. Do you even bother to look at those countries? They are in a warmer area. Hence they can support more people. We are in the north. If you want to compare us to other countries then I would suggest comparing us to norway, finland, or places like alaska or siberia.
We can not just spread out. It's hard to build up there, especially with all that permafrost and other things. On top of that there are these native places- yeah, lets push them off, is that what you think? Stuff like... oh... red niggers is what the hillbillies might call them - lets just move in on their reserves or territories... like cree territory in quebec, or other places.

I guess I missed the part where cold places like Northern China and the Eurasian Steppe had millions of people. And are you trying to tell me that southern ontario and the prairies have a permafrost cover that'll prevent farming and development? Right
I've pointed this out a very long while ago in this thread: historically, colder temperatures in Canada were one of the reasons that we had a low population density. But that point is pretty moot now with the invention of magical central heating and insulation, and the reality is that global warming is going to change huge parts of our climate in the next 100 years even if we drop our current CO2 emissions to zero

Screw that idea. Really, screw that idea.

You're right. I should just not give any argument that you disagree with. I'll admit, that technique is really effective. I suppose the grown up version of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming?

Not all suburbs are the same. Take for example the suburbs in stockholm. That's a totally different thing compared to the auto dependent suburb.

Man, all this stuff that you are proposing is along the lines of those authoritarian bastards who want to tell people what to do, how to do, and where to do what. It basically eliminates freedom.

Alright. So we should bar people from using their cars in any ways possible, but we shouldn't give people incentives to spread out through the country or make high density living more attractive? Logical coherence, please.

Why the hell should we sacrifice ourselves for the problems of others on the other side of the world??? Places where half the population lives on a dollar or less a day... why on earth would we want to compare ourselves with them and spend our time and resources to accommodate them? Countries exist dude. There's a reason for that.

Weren't you just criticizing how Guns Germs and Steel is a bad book for giving Europeans an excuse to not give a shit about the rest of the world..? OH WHOOPS, I forgot that your concern for being taken seriously was lost when you decided it'd be a good idea to stop being intelligent and troll instead.

EDIT: Last attempt here, trying my hardest to believe that you're not trolling your ass off. I have to admit, it's very hard.

That is really absurd, to want to "reduce the use of english". Goodluck with that, you'll need it ! You'll really need it, in fact, you'll need more than luck.

Please either read the post or use your brain. I specifically noted that all language use would increase.

 

[afransen]

I'm open to more immigration, but I don't think rapid population growth is a desirable goal, per se. We should be looking to maximize the quality of life of Canadians, and a moderately growing population tends to help with that. I'm sympathetic to what second in pie wants, but I think trying to triple our population in two generations would be near impossible to be done well. We'd likely end up reducing overall quality of life and vast tracts of shoddily constructed cities. Our culture can't assimilate people at that rate, and I'd worry about sectarianism.

We have a lot to lose, and uncertain gains to be had through rapid, unprecedented immigration.

 

[LAz]

Last attempt here, trying my hardest to believe that you're not trolling your ass off. I have to admit, it's very hard.

It's an on and off stage. Since my last post in on the previous page it has been in off troll mode. And you really should respond to that post.

Weren't you just criticizing how Guns Germs and Steel is a bad book for giving Europeans an excuse to not give a shit about the rest of the world..?

Excuse me, but europeans are not responsible for everything that is going wrong in the underdeveloped world.
I did not criticize it for not giving a shit - I criticized it for taking advantage. Not giving a shit is beside the point, but the key point behind that is the exploitation.
Do look into that article. I took trouble to get it. The least you can do is read it to realize why diamond's book is b.s. You can send it to me if you want, I'll use it as toilet paper. - okay sorry, this is the only troll sentence in this post. I couldn't resist, especially when eurocentric bastards like Diamond come up.

Alright. So we should bar people from using their cars in any ways possible, but we shouldn't give people incentives to spread out through the country or make high density living more attractive? Logical coherence, please.

I never said lets bar the car. The car is a vital necessity. I did say there should be auto disincentives - just look at the higher cost of petrol in european countries for example.
High density living is more of a luxurious thing nowadays. You know, how we redevelop neighborhoods and make them yuppified. Condos and whatnot. We are not gonna see your slum dwellers moving in or affording condos. No way man. It's a lose lose scenario. where they will get dumped into public housing highrise ghettos, and we will basically see forms of regant park pop up. Lets face it, such massive migration would require massive public housing, the likes of which we have not seen.

I guess I missed the part where cold places like Northern China and the Eurasian Steppe had millions of people. And are you trying to tell me that southern ontario and the prairies have a permafrost cover that'll prevent farming and development? Right

All those places that you mention do not have high populations. As I said before, look at the scandinavian states - the population is overwhelmingly around places where winter is less. The fact is that climate does matter, it is simply more expensive to build up in the north.
You ignore the additional heating costs and such things.

Most importantly you ignore this post, http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?13262-A-bigger-Canada/page8#118 , in which many inconvenient facts have been put.

Seriously, where will all that infrastructure come from? Where? Stop ignoring the points put in that post. The environment is not a toilet, we need to take care of it. Many big cities nowadays have serious issues with sewers and rainfall. This and other things in that post have been ignored. I think the reason is because you simply prefer to avoid serious questions, because you yourself are trolling with this topic.

 

[urbandreamer]

I wonder if the real mass immigrant pool will come from America, rather than elsewhere? Their economy is in serious trouble, and with so many out of work and gov't bankruptcies, perhaps a second coming of "Empire Loyalists" is on the way?

Imagine another 10 million Americans in Canada!

 

[Second_in_pie]

I never said lets bar the car. The car is a vital necessity. I did say there should be auto disincentives - just look at the higher cost of petrol in european countries for example.
High density living is more of a luxurious thing nowadays. You know, how we redevelop neighborhoods and make them yuppified. Condos and whatnot. We are not gonna see your slum dwellers moving in or affording condos. No way man. It's a lose lose scenario. where they will get dumped into public housing highrise ghettos, and we will basically see forms of regant park pop up. Lets face it, such massive migration would require massive public housing, the likes of which we have not seen.

Exactly. I'm saying that we should give incentives to not live in sprawley suburban housing. Do you think that China and Europe got it wrong when they put a majority of their people living in relatively high density environments? The point is that you make high density living the cheaper and more favourable option.

All those places that you mention do not have high populations. As I said before, look at the scandinavian states - the population is overwhelmingly around places where winter is less. The fact is that climate does matter, it is simply more expensive to build up in the north.
You ignore the additional heating costs and such things.

The Northeast Chinese province of Heilongjiang, who's most southernly point is about 43 degrees Latitude, has a population density of 83 people per square kilometer. Novosibrisk Oblast, an oblast of Russia which has a southern border 2 degrees more northernly than the prairie provinces and is much colder than the prairies on average, has a population density of 15 people per square kilometer. Saskatchewan, a region containing some of the best grain soil in the world, has a population density of 1.7 people per square kilometer. But fair enough, I'm not actually asking us to live in Saskatchewan's northern regions where it's all rocky and beautiful forestland. So let's cut it in half. Whoop dee doo. Population density of 3.4 people per square kilometer.

Japan, which actually has a climate comparable to British Columbia, is an extremely dense country with a very similar mountainous geography. I'm asking for the southernmost portion of BC to have half of the density of Japan.

And you want me to compare the nordic countries (which I don't think is a fair comparison considering their being warmed by the gulf stream,) Finland has a population density of 16 people per square kilometer, and that's including the northern parts of the country which are well above 60 degrees north latitude with a geography more comparable to the Canadian shield than fertile prairie provinces. Sweden has a population density of over 20 people per square kilometer, and a southernmost point more northernly than the prairies extend to. Norway has a population density of 12.5 people per square kilometer, once again having well over half the country above 60 degrees north and in an extremely rocky, desolate landscape. But again, if you'd like to see fairer examples, look at Russia and China as an example for the Prairies and Japan as a (moderate) example for BC. Scandinavia would be better examples for Newfoundland, Finland more like Labrador, though I'm not proposing for a lot of people to go into those places.

And if you're saying it's more expensive to do things like build houses up north, that once again has to do with density of scale and where populations are actually located. It's obviously going to cost more money to build a house up in lower Slave (which, once again, I'm not saying at all that a lot of people should be living there,) with a windy road which you'd have to commission at least 2 transport trucks to ship things up from Yellowknife than it does at a similar latitude in Sweden, because there's enough people to demand a lot of that. If I wanted to build a house in the Sahara, it'd cost a similar amount of money to if I wanted to build one in the NWT. And from what I gather, it doesn't actually cost that much to build a house in the Prairies, at least not that much more than Minnesota or Wyoming. I have to ask where you've actually been in canada, as it would appear that your experience is having seen one documentary on ice roads and spent January up in Edmonton.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I'm open to more immigration, but I don't think rapid population growth is a desirable goal, per se. We should be looking to maximize the quality of life of Canadians, and a moderately growing population tends to help with that. I'm sympathetic to what second in pie wants, but I think trying to triple our population in two generations would be near impossible to be done well. We'd likely end up reducing overall quality of life and vast tracts of shoddily constructed cities. Our culture can't assimilate people at that rate, and I'd worry about sectarianism.

We have a lot to lose, and uncertain gains to be had through rapid, unprecedented immigration.

And I accept that there are a lot of unknowns in turning the immigration tap even higher. But if we had a responsible government that made sure our cities developed without spreading out, and gave proper infrastructure (which even needs a lot of work now,) to cities to cope with those new people and had programs to help them find jobs or make their own businesses, I think it could happen well.
And I'd again like to note that our country has a lot to change already. To ensure our future is a bright one, we'll have to change many, many things in our society. Things like drastically lowering consumerism, switching almost entirely towards renewables, living more densely. When I see Canada growing quickly, I see those things happening.
Maybe the overall quality of life for Canadians might drop a bit, but what that'll equate to is not buying every single little thing that piques your interest or your second car after 3 years. It'll put a strain on our electricity grid, which will mean Canadians will need to be more energy efficient, and will give huge incentives to switch over to renewables. And if half of the population is asking for PVPs on their rooves, it makes it a lot easier for the other half to get them (and may I note, a Canadian manufacturer to supply them.) If there's more people looking for housing, affordability will be reduced. That just means that we won't be making more 10,000 square foot homes and instead more dense townhomes, mid rise condos, or actually quite spacious high rise apartment blocks.

Obviously Canadians will oppose these things, and I can partially understand why. But they'll need to happen anyways unless we want our planet to buckle in time for the next generation. And by adding in a bunch of people so that those needs become easier to see, we avoid the "slow boil" problem that Al Gore illustrates quite well in an Inconvenient Truth. Canadians are already wanting to make a difference and change their behaviour, so they'll be less disinclined to changing these things. At the same time, lots of new people means there'll be pressure to keep those promises of change. And as an added bonus, we get extra density to get things like HSR or more theme parks or movie theatres or whatever all across the country, which is a benefit to not only the immigrants who might be without these things, but also Canadians that are currently living there which don't have access to those amenities because there isn't the density to make it economical. And we are able to enrich the lives of millions of people who might not have had such good lives otherwise, and ensure they live environmentally friendly and satisfying llifestyles, which they might not get if all the developing countries follow the smokestacks to try to live out very american-like wasteful lives which we all know is not sustainable.

I wonder if the real mass immigrant pool will come from America, rather than elsewhere? Their economy is in serious trouble, and with so many out of work and gov't bankruptcies, perhaps a second coming of "Empire Loyalists" is on the way?

Imagine another 10 million Americans in Canada!

Now there's a scary thought. Or maybe we could just get them all to move to the Pacific and annex Washington and Oregon?

 

[urbandreamer]

Scary? I'm a product of such immigrants--am I scary? (Yes I am says Adma.) Many Canadians of Mennonite, English etc backgrounds moved to (Lower and Upper) Canada c.early 1812-20s and have successfully integrated into Canadian society. (Well, some Mennonites, but many remain in their "ghettos.")

I just finished reading Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: best "story" in years!

Since I was a teenager, I was always fascinated with urban planning/mapping/demographics/etc and would (this was long before the days of google maps) stare at Ontario maps for hours imagining the province had a population of 30-60 million people--where would the people go, the built form, roads, etc? I decided then, and still think it's a good idea, that while every city and town in Ontario would have to double in population (GTA 10-15 million; K-W 1 million, Stratford 70-100,000, Hanover 25,000 etc) and could easily do so, that the rest would go into planned medium density (meaning Montreal-style density--6 storey walkups mostly as they're cheaper to construct and much more environmentally sustainable than highrise towers) brand new cities along the 401 corridor from roughly Kingston to Windsor--in a long thin strip about 1-2 miles on either side of the highway. That way, mass transit would be effective (high speed rail from Montreal to Detroit, even a super long subway route!), less new highways would have to be built, and the impact on prime farmland would be minimal.

And btw, thanks to much vacant and under utilized land, many of the towns and cities that would double in population would hardly expand their physical size.

 

[afransen]

So 10 million Chinese/Indian immigrants good, but 10 million American immigrants bad?

 

[Second_in_pie]

I was being sarcastic. I forgot that that has to be explicitly stated in text.

 

[LAz]

Exactly. I'm saying that we should give incentives to not live in sprawley suburban housing. Do you think that China and Europe got it wrong when they put a majority of their people living in relatively high density environments?

Auto disincentives are not incentives like the ones that you are talking about. In fact you give no clue as to what kind of incentives there might be.
The people in those countries have VERY little choice regarding their dwellings. Faced with housing shortages after world war two, they had to build highrise towers and public housing to accommodate the lower classes.

High rises especially have been proven to be notorious failures. Think regant park, that's by suggestion.

Novosibrisk Oblast, an oblast of Russia which has a southern border 2 degrees more northernly than the prairie provinces and is much colder than the prairies on average, has a population density of 15 people per square kilometer. Saskatchewan, a region containing some of the best grain soil in the world, has a population density of 1.7 people per square kilometer. But fair enough, I'm not actually asking us to live in Saskatchewan's northern regions where it's all rocky and beautiful forestland. So let's cut it in half. Whoop dee doo. Population density of 3.4 people per square kilometer.

I say fuck your reasoning regarding the novosibirsk oblast. Hm, why such harsh words. Simply because more than half the population of the oblast is the city of novosibirsk itself. So, your reasoning is comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare the novosibirsk oblast then you should compare it with the regina and saskatoon metropolitan areas, not the entire province of saskatchewan. Many russian oblasts have extremely low population density, because they are so far north. It is no surprise to anyone who studied russia to notice that much of siberia is sparsely populated. So, if one uses siberia as a model, then you can disregard your multimillion migration plans.

Japan, which actually has a climate comparable to British Columbia, is an extremely dense country with a very similar mountainous geography. I'm asking for the southernmost portion of BC to have half of the density of Japan.

Well, sure, considering that Tokyo has like 30 million people. So we need to ask ourselves the real questions.
The ones in that post that you continually ignore.

Who will built all this infrastructure? Where will the shit go man? Where? We need the extra infrastructure to carry the shit through the sewers. Building so many new sewers is like building a subway. That's simply a shitload of resources, resources that we do not have to invest. You ignore what effects this might have on the water supply, and other things.

I wonder if the real mass immigrant pool will come from America, rather than elsewhere? Their economy is in serious trouble, and with so many out of work and gov't bankruptcies, perhaps a second coming of "Empire Loyalists" is on the way?

Imagine another 10 million Americans in Canada!

Don't allow stupid idea to be considered that far.
Whatever has happened to the US has happened to Canada. Major recessions affect Canada, because Canada is so dependent on the US. The minor recession in 2000 er so did not have much of an effect, because it was short. But, the US is in for a long decline. Municipal budgets are in the toilet. There's simply less and less money. Deficits are huge. So it's all a matter of when this whole rotten thing tips over. They naturally won't allow it to just tip. It will be a slow gradual process.
Remember how California went bankrupt? Illinois is next in line. Their deficit is equal to half the budget. And after illinois tanks, there will be plenty more in line afterward, as dozens start tanking one at a time.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Auto disincentives are not incentives like the ones that you are talking about. In fact you give no clue as to what kind of incentives there might be.
The people in those countries have VERY little choice regarding their dwellings. Faced with housing shortages after world war two, they had to build highrise towers and public housing to accommodate the lower classes.

High rises especially have been proven to be notorious failures. Think regant park, that's by suggestion.

Oh, so telling people they shouldn't do something isn't considered being an authoritarian bastard anymore? Incentives could be simple, like a monetary incentive towards people building higher density housing, or paying for the infrastructure or something. Or you could get even craftier (I'm assuming more evil in your books,) and do things like build subway lines or regional rail stops in areas that you want to densify, so demand's created out of thin air for higher density.

And are people in Europe very unhappy with living in homes that people from around the world spend millions of dollars to oggle at and dream of living in? Last time I checked, European cities were the height of sophistication in urban design.

So I'm guessing you have some hard talk to do with downtown Toronto and Vancouver, right? Or New York, for that matter. And I thought it was a good thing that downtown was expanding! D:

I say fuck your reasoning regarding the novosibirsk oblast. Hm, why such harsh words. Simply because more than half the population of the oblast is the city of novosibirsk itself. So, your reasoning is comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare the novosibirsk oblast then you should compare it with the regina and saskatoon metropolitan areas, not the entire province of saskatchewan. Many russian oblasts have extremely low population density, because they are so far north. It is no surprise to anyone who studied russia to notice that much of siberia is sparsely populated. So, if one uses siberia as a model, then you can disregard your multimillion migration plans.

Well, sure, considering that Tokyo has like 30 million people. So we need to ask ourselves the real questions.
The ones in that post that you continually ignore.

This is comedy.
Taking out Novosibrisk (which is like you saying that Saskatchewan's popluation should all be liquified out of Regina and Saskatoon and there's no way they could ever grow past their current populations,) Novosibrisk Oblast is still 50% more dense than that 3.7 density for "all of southern saskatchewan" which is actually a lie because the prairies are bigger, and to get a similar number, you'd have to take out the populations of Regina and Saskatoon from Saskatchewan's population count, giving you closer to a 250% more densely populated Novosibrisk countryside than that of rural Saskatchewan, and that Novnosibrisk is less fertile, colder, and has considerably worse living conditions than Saskatchewan does (and Saskatchewan would be much more open to new people than Novosibrisk would.) And you totally ignore Heilojiang as well (I assume it's intentional.)

Are you saying that Vancouver can't have a similarly scaled population to Tokyo? And even taking out Tokyo's 35 million people, BC would still be able to triple it's population by using similar rural development techniques based on a Japanese density, which I have no doubt could be innovated to be even more productive, efficient, livable, and environmentally-friendly.

Who will built all this infrastructure? Where will the shit go man? Where? We need the extra infrastructure to carry the shit through the sewers. Building so many new sewers is like building a subway. That's simply a shitload of resources, resources that we do not have to invest. You ignore what effects this might have on the water supply, and other things.

Hm, might Canadians be able to build all of this infrastructure? It's an interesting thought, but maybe we should just whine and see if the US or mommy UK will come and build our infrastructure for us? You'd encounter the exact same problems if our population remained exactly the same. Truth is, Canada's facing a huge problem in that our infrastructure all across the country is crumbling, nowhere near modern, and nowhere near what the country requires even now with current population levels. These are problems that will have to be solved/fixed anyways, and when you're building a new sewer, it's not that big a monetary leap to build that sewer for a capacity of 100,000 people to 300,000 people.

 

[LAz]

Incentives could be simple, like a monetary incentive towards people building higher density housing, or paying for the infrastructure or something. Or you could get even craftier (I'm assuming more evil in your books,) and do things like build subway lines or regional rail stops in areas that you want to densify, so demand's created out of thin air for higher density.

I do believe that there is some incentive already for developers to build denser. It might make more sense in some ways, but you can not tell them do this or do that, unless if you want an authoritarian system.
The only way to do this is to turn into stalin or something like that, and literally say we are gonna do this or do that. Or you can build braziila or chandaragarh, disasaters in my opinion.

Do you have any clue how much a subway line costs to build? Any clue. And then the additional development around there.
Strike one - nowhere near the money to build lines today, much less to build lines where there is no demand as was done in stockholm.
Strike two - development will require people. You suggest high density and whatnot. But what will pay for this and where will the returns be? The slum-dwellers that you want to bring in are not in the position to pay much.

And are people in Europe very unhappy with living in homes that people from around the world spend millions of dollars to oggle at and dream of living in? Last time I checked, European cities were the height of sophistication in urban design.

What you are calling for resembles the concrete highrises in the former socialist countries.
Maybe some can have their urban design, but truth be told, even in the UK people do not ever plan on owning their own home or apartment, they plan to be renters all their life... the average person. That is worrisome.

So I'm guessing you have some hard talk to do with downtown Toronto and Vancouver, right? Or New York, for that matter. And I thought it was a good thing that downtown was expanding! D:

At what cost does the downtown expand? Yeah, they're doing it effectively in places around the US... displacing people left and right, having no regard for humanity or those communities. Git the F* out you niggers is probably what the developers are thinking. If they are not blacks they are then people of lower class and so forth... what you want requires displacement, much displacement.
Ah, you've been reading the Romanian dictator's urban planning?
Or you have been planning on how to yuppify the city. One tip - yuppificiation does not work with foreign slumdwellers, as they are not the yuppie.

Taking out Novosibrisk (which is like you saying that Saskatchewan's popluation should all be liquified out of Regina and Saskatoon and there's no way they could ever grow past their current populations,)

Some misunderstanding here. When you compare novosibirsk oblast to saskatchewan the more appropriate thing would be to compare the density of novosibirsk and that of regina or saskatoon. Saskatchewan is several times bigger than the novosibirsk oblast, which for the most part is just the city itself.
What's problematic is that you ignore that huge parts of siberia are very underpopulated.
When you look at say Tomsk Oblast, Tyumen Oblast, you see different stuff. Krasnoyarsk Krai especially. Northern places are less populated, it's simply how things are.

Are you saying that Vancouver can't have a similarly scaled population to Tokyo? And even taking out Tokyo's 35 million people, BC would still be able to triple it's population by using similar rural development techniques based on a Japanese density, which I have no doubt could be innovated to be even more productive, efficient, livable, and environmentally-friendly.

Japan is so overpopulated that it's disgusting. Tokyo's not their only multimillion place. The place is a freaking disaster if you ask me.

Hm, might Canadians be able to build all of this infrastructure? It's an interesting thought, but maybe we should just whine and see if the US or mommy UK will come and build our infrastructure for us? You'd encounter the exact same problems if our population remained exactly the same. Truth is, Canada's facing a huge problem in that our infrastructure all across the country is crumbling, nowhere near modern, and nowhere near what the country requires even now with current population levels. These are problems that will have to be solved/fixed anyways, and when you're building a new sewer, it's not that big a monetary leap to build that sewer for a capacity of 100,000 people to 300,000 people.

Yes, finally you get to what I was talking about at the end of the last page.
It is an interesting thought because it is simply a fantasy.

As you say yourself, we have a problem with infrastructure now. We can barely keep things as they are. How on earth do you plan to then accommodate so many millions???
It's not that you build a new sewer... you maintain your existing one. I think sewer maintenance fees for that are low. If I am not mistaken our sewers were built many decades ago. We do not have the money to build new ones, even though we need them. In most major cities in north america waste water is combined with runoff water. So what happens when there is very high rainfall? Well, since there is a combined sewer that crap goes out into the environment. We do not have the money to build new sewers. So when these new people come we will only be putting more pressure on the current system, and perhaps the crap will just be going out on the streets and lawns instead of down the sewers. So dude, think of the environmental stuff, such as where will all that crap go, or stuff like the watersupply.



In simple financial terms your ideas of mass population expansion are futile. Take other things in and we can perhaps bicker, but the very simple economic cost of this is ridiculous. For the economic cost alone nobody is cray to want to attempt such a silly plan.

 

[Second_in_pie]

What you are calling for resembles the concrete highrises in the former socialist countries.
Maybe some can have their urban design, but truth be told, even in the UK people do not ever plan on owning their own home or apartment, they plan to be renters all their life... the average person. That is worrisome.

This is hilarious. The only way you can build densely is apartment blocks specifically designed to be ugly (specifically noting that because there are a lot of apartment blocks that actually have a lot of charm.)
And so what if you can't own your own house? Really, it just shows that society's progressed enough that's it's not all about what I have. Fact of the matter is, the UK is still considered to be a great place to live, and people seem to love the idea of building dense little cities and towns like it's dense little cities and towns. And I find it interesting that you bitched on and on about how the suburbs are disgusting yet now you're saying that a denser population is an insidious and inhumane thing to do to people (regardless of the fact that hundreds of millions of people live that way and haven't torn out their eyeballs yet.)

Some misunderstanding here. When you compare novosibirsk oblast to saskatchewan the more appropriate thing would be to compare the density of novosibirsk and that of regina or saskatoon. Saskatchewan is several times bigger than the novosibirsk oblast, which for the most part is just the city itself.
What's problematic is that you ignore that huge parts of siberia are very underpopulated.
When you look at say Tomsk Oblast, Tyumen Oblast, you see different stuff. Krasnoyarsk Krai especially. Northern places are less populated, it's simply how things are.

Japan is so overpopulated that it's disgusting. Tokyo's not their only multimillion place. The place is a freaking disaster if you ask me.

Only problem is that Tomsk and Tyumen's most southernly points are further north than the most northernly extent of the prairies, and don't even lie on the Eurasian Steppe. I really can't accept that that's a genuine mistake.
So, for the record, rural Novosibrisk oblast is more densely populated than all of the most densely populated region of Saskatchewan, which includes the cities of Regina and Saskatoon, while Novosibrisk has worse soil conditions, colder winter temperatures, and less natural resources in general. And STILL no response to Heilojiang.

And Japan may be a bit overpopulated, but I'd expect that I'm asking for BC to have about 1/3 of it's density in the southernmost 250 km of the Province. Though I'd call your naming Japan as disgusting a bit past "distasteful."

As you say yourself, we have a problem with infrastructure now. We can barely keep things as they are. How on earth do you plan to then accommodate so many millions???
It's not that you build a new sewer... you maintain your existing one. I think sewer maintenance fees for that are low. If I am not mistaken our sewers were built many decades ago. We do not have the money to build new ones, even though we need them. In most major cities in north america waste water is combined with runoff water. So what happens when there is very high rainfall? Well, since there is a combined sewer that crap goes out into the environment. We do not have the money to build new sewers. So when these new people come we will only be putting more pressure on the current system, and perhaps the crap will just be going out on the streets and lawns instead of down the sewers. So dude, think of the environmental stuff, such as where will all that crap go, or stuff like the watersupply.

Yeah, that's my point I was making in my post. Our infrastructure is terrible, and we need to rebuild it. The point is that while you're already basically totally rehauling our entire infrastructure system, it becomes a lot easier to make space for more (not a kind of cost in that it cost 3x as much to build a sewer for 3x the people.) And if those people can vastly enrich their lives and the lives of Canadians already living here, I personally think it's stupid to not do that, assuming we actually get around to building our infrastructure and making our country more sustainable.
AND finally, you still haven't given a nod to the fact that countries around the world need to solve these problems too, but on a scale many times greater than Canada now or even Canada with 100 million people, and nowhere near the resources that we have.


But really, can we just ignore this disrupting crap being sprouted by LAz and actually create some sort of discussion on my specific proposal/idea, and proposals/ideas for the future of the country in general? While you may not agree with 100 million by 2050 (I personally don't, more like 70 million,) I'd like to see what works with it and what doesn't. If you disagree, try your hardest to point out what can be improved on, or give insight into how some problems might be overcome, or just what some of the pros of that are.