Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I was thinking more about the Combined Statistical Area, which includes places like Ann Arbor (I don't think it's counted in the MSA). Ann Arbor is only a 30 minute drive from the Detroit airport, so I think it's realistic to count it as being part of Metro Detroit. In fact, I know people who attended U of M and lived in Detroit for the cheap property. According to Wikipedia, the CSA has seen modest positive growth every decade and is larger than 5 million people (single digit % per decade). I don't think we can understand the flatness of the Detroit MSA post-1970 without acknowledging the continued growth on its suburban and exurban borders. The sheer level of exurban sprawl in the US makes it difficult to draw comparisons to Canadian metro regions, which are far denser.Metro Detroit (the six county MSA) is closer to being home to 4 million people than to 5 million. It was also close to being home to 4 million people in 1960, back when Calgary had a quarter of a million people. The figure below is from Wikipedia.
View attachment 363664
Whether we like it or not, Calgary will still likely see at least 10% population growth per decade. Way more than the Detroit CSA's 2.5% growth, but relatively modest compared to the ridiculous 25% growth we've seen in the last several decades. This points to another difference between Calgary and Detroit. Detroit is one of over 50 US metro regions that have populations of at least one million, and the US population is only growing about 6% per decade. There are many places that will absorb that modest population growth and Detroit is not particularly competitive among them. Calgary, by contrast, is one of only six metro regions with more than 1 million residents in a country that is growing almost 12% per decade.And, honestly, the idea that the kind of growth that cities like Calgary have had over the past 50 years is not indefinitely sustainable or desirable or likely. But how many people on these boards would be happy if Calgary had 1.5 million people in 2071, putting us just below Winnipeg, with Toronto in the 12 million range, Vancouver and Montreal in the 6 million range and Ottawa in the 3 million range?
Funny. The people I always hear comparing Calgary to Detroit are people in Calgary who are heavily tied to the O&G industry. It's kind of a threat: "how dare you say anything negative about O&G! Without O&G, Calgary will become the next Detroit!"Final thought is that those who compare Calgary to Detroit likely have little tie to the City, and therefore have no personal interest in the City's future success, or actually take delight in seeing Calgary falter.
As I remind them, there were people in 1970s Toronto who held similar views about manufacturing and shipping. Without those industries, what possible purpose does Toronto serve? Detroit's not the only city that's gone through economic transitions. Most major cities have at some point.