People love to say Surrey is going to be bigger than Vancouver within 10 years. (And that all the businesses and developers are moving there, as well.)
Stats nerds know that’s not true and frequently tell me so. Now, blogger Gordon Price has nicely laid out the numbers.
This break from stupid election stories brought to you courtesy of me.
17 responses so far ↓
1 Roger Kemble // Nov 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Who cares?
2 jesse // Nov 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm
If Surrey is bigger than Vancouver… it shudders me to think: who, then, is the flagship mayor of BC?
It’s almost unthinkable should that title be untimely ripp’d from the cold dead hands of the ruling entities at Cambie and 12th.
3 boohoo // Nov 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Right you are Roger–get back to wandering rants with your cute q’s and z’s and personal insults. It suits you best.
The point Jesse is that it isn’t (population wise), nor will it ever overtake Vancouver as the primate city for culture/business.
4 Tessa // Nov 3, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Let’s remember that Surrey is twice the size of Vancouver, so it’s hardly a sensible comparison. Frankly, I don’t think Surreys borders make any sense geographically – do residents of South Surrey really have a lot in common with residents of Fleetowod? What about the rural areas and Central Surrey?
5 jesse // Nov 3, 2011 at 5:03 pm
“nor will it ever overtake Vancouver as the primate city for culture/business”
Still, it’s harder to make a case that a smaller city will be justified to represent a region. It’s rather embarrassing at mayoral powwows. Better to increase the City’s population, just in case.
6 jesse // Nov 3, 2011 at 5:06 pm
“do residents of South Surrey really have a lot in common with residents of Fleetowod”
Do residents of Point Grey have a lot in common with residents of Collingwood? Income stratification is massive; geography is an excuse to maintain appearances of urban chic trumping urban sprawl.
7 Joe Just Joe // Nov 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I’m surprised no mention of the discussion about redrawing the municipal boundaries to exclude native territories. Believe the theory is that people living on native land should not be allowed to vote in municipal elections. No idea how serious the proposal is but it should have interesting ramifications. Guess they wouldn’t count in the population numbers either then?
Regarding the bragging rights I’d think by the time Surrey catches Vancouver proper population-wise that at least some amalgamation will have occurred. Even just swallowing the UBC district would buy a lot of time.
8 boohoo // Nov 3, 2011 at 6:25 pm
jesse, that’s the thing, it won’t. Vancouver will remain larger.
9 Robert in Calgary // Nov 3, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Tessa,
Sensible comparisons?
From my viewpoint, you’ve got….18 Mayors too many.
10 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Robert in Calgary,
re 18 mayors – from your mouth to the ears of Gaia on Cortes Island.
11 Josh // Nov 3, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“Still, it’s harder to make a case that a smaller city will be justified to represent a region. It’s rather embarrassing at mayoral powwows. Better to increase the City’s population, just in case”
Jesse, you apparently aware of the many cities around the world with a notable smaller population than their suburban counterparts.
Population-wise, the city of London (population 11,000) is much smaller than all its other boroughs. Manhattan is smaller than Brooklyn or Queens. Hong Kong is smaller than Kowloon or New Territories. San Francisco is smaller than Oakland. Etc etc… Do you see any of these latter cities/boroughs with a larger population representing their respective regions? I’ll be damned if anyone thinks Queens is more representative than Manhattan.
If Surrey ever surpasses Vancouver in population, so what? Surrey will still be in the shadows of Vancouver, just like the cases of those aforementioned cities.
Surrey will always be a suburb of Vancouver.
12 Agustin // Nov 4, 2011 at 8:16 am
Have you seen Toronto lately?
No, thanks.
13 MB // Nov 4, 2011 at 9:09 am
@ Agustin 11 … exactly.
14 Bill Lee // Nov 4, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Hmm.
And where would Occupy Surrey start to flourish.
Surrey will grow when they have good regional transport links. The houses along Panorama Ridge have enough Captains of Industry…. etc.
Now they want 100 km/hr speedways to airport and downtown meetings.
15 Ron // Nov 4, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Vancouver will always remain the protest capital of the region.
16 Mike from Vancouver // Nov 5, 2011 at 2:08 am
I don’t think the issue here is that Surrey will be bigger than Vancouver anytime soon. It won’t..and doesn’t look like it will for another 20 years if not longer.
The more pressing issue is the fact that just over 25 percent of the population in Metro Vancouver actually lives in the City of Vancouver. Who can truely represent/speak for Metro Vancouver? The job has traditionally defaulted to the Mayor of Vancouver, but this hardly seems realistic nor fair.
17 Hans Goldberg // Nov 6, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I wonder what is Surrey’s contribution to affordable rental accommodation?