Someone from Vancouver told me that it's Metropolitan area covers 30,000 square miles. That's 6 times the size of metro NYC which is apparently about 5000. And almost the same size as Metro LA.

Is that honestly the case?, any stuff I've read gives Vancouvers Metropolitan area as being about 1000 square miles.

Maybe she's being honest, I mean I wouldn't know.

And this isn't a criticism of Vancouver.

No, it is 2,877 km² (1,110 sq. miles). But the total land area of a city, or especially a metropolitan area is largely irrelevant. What is more important is the urbanized area, and for that, Vancouver covers 1,135 km² (438 sq. miles).

Cheers :)

I Thought 30,000 was a bit far-fetched.

How big is Toronto's urban area?

if she is from vancouver she has probably never been further than metrotown - lol

I should also add this is not a criticism of the girl who told me this. :)

It's alright it's fine to be curious.

A reason why Vancouver's Metro area is pretty large compared to our population goes all the way back. Settlers just settled (HAHA *laughing at me and my poor grammar*) in many different places in the Metro, from Fort Langley to New Westminster to Downtown Vancouver: all over the map! The gaps between these towns were filled in and later make up Metro Vancouver.

It's alright it's fine to be curious.

A reason why Vancouver's Metro area is pretty large compared to our population

But it's not 30,000 square miles is it? :)

Cheers :)

I Thought 30,000 was a bit far-fetched.

How big is Toronto's urban area?

The urban area is 1,748 km², with Greater Toronto being 7,125 km².

It's alright it's fine to be curious.

A reason why Vancouver's Metro area is pretty large compared to our population goes all the way back. Settlers just settled (HAHA *laughing at me and my poor grammar*) in many different places in the Metro, from Fort Langley to New Westminster to Downtown Vancouver: all over the map! The gaps between these towns were filled in and later make up Metro Vancouver.

yes

my friends grandma lived pretty much her whole life in new westminster and for her vancouver was like a day trip - like how vancovuerites might go to seattle for a day trip now...

now people do that trip just to go for work or meet up for coffee

Someone from Vancouver told me that it's Metropolitan area covers 30,000 square miles. That's 6 times the size of metro NYC which is apparently about 5000. And almost the same size as Metro LA.


maybe your friend meant the entire lower mainland. however, i have no idea how big that is.

maybe somebody else could answer that

I Believe metro vancouver is 2.3 million approximately ....as of the latest consensus....

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/Pages/faqs.aspx

Metro Vancouver (the region) has an area of 282,000 hectares and covers a distance of 96 km from Maple Ridge to Bowen Island.

A square 100 m on each side is one hectare.

I Believe metro vancouver is 2.3 million approximately ....as of the latest consensus....

I think he wants to know the size of the area not the population.:)

Cheers :)

I Thought 30,000 was a bit far-fetched.

How big is Toronto's urban area?

30,000 sq miles is about the size of Scotland!

Toronto is around 3k

yes

my friends grandma lived pretty much her whole life in new westminster and for her vancouver was like a day trip - like how vancovuerites might go to seattle for a day trip now...

I bet she bathes just as often.

2,137,674

I think that population is way low-balled. It should be way over 2.6M now; not including the Valley or Victoria. In all honesty though - it should be the Lower Mainland, and the pop would be over 3.3M.

Victoria and the Valley is in Vancouver's media market and surely there is some commuting going on. Im not so sure why Vancouver doesn't include the whole Lower Mainland as it's metro.

Don't understand the need to think of Vancouver is a big sprawling entity, which it isn't, but in fact takes away from the beauty of the region. Much better to view the Lower Mainland as a dozen compact cities each with their own character and skylines. Works from a transportation point of view, because people should live close to where they work, and hopefully they will cuz of gas prices.

I think that population is way low-balled. It should be way over 2.6M now; not including the Valley or Victoria. In all honesty though - it should be the Lower Mainland, and the pop would be over 3.3M.

Victoria and the Valley is in Vancouver's media market and surely there is some commuting going on. Im not so sure why Vancouver doesn't include the whole Lower Mainland as it's metro.

Are you sure? Isn't Victoria 2.5 hours and Kelowna 4 hours

I think that population is way low-balled. It should be way over 2.6M now; not including the Valley or Victoria. In all honesty though - it should be the Lower Mainland, and the pop would be over 3.3M.

Victoria and the Valley is in Vancouver's media market and surely there is some commuting going on. Im not so sure why Vancouver doesn't include the whole Lower Mainland as it's metro.

its political

at anytime in theory any of the metro cities could pull out of the GVRD

maple ridge has threated to pull out recently of the GVRD i assume that would remove their population from the numbers

Kelowna isn't part of the Lower Mainland. Victoria is 2.5 hours because you have to ferry (it's only 60 miles or so point to point I think).

Anyways, Im referring mostly to this, Abbotsford is immediately next to Langley yet is not part of the Metro Vancouver (yet Langley is).

Also, there is significant commuter patterns to and from Lower Vancouver Island - yet are not considered part of Metro Vancouver. Yet IS considered part of Vancouver's market.

If this were the US, Vancouver CSA would include Victoria, Nanaimo, Whistler, Hope and everything enbetween - some 4M+ people.

Why does Canada do things different? I mean, all of that said area is more or less Vancouver or HUGELY dependent on it (much like in the Seattle CSA, Olympia is 60 miles away yet still pretty dependent upon Seattle).

It all just seems weird, when you try to compare places - apples don't equal oranges. Seems like Canada low-balls while the US high-balls.

In Japan, they don't arbitrarily draw lines like in Canada (Metro Tokyo is 35M people and includes the entire Tokyo bay area, Osaka Metro is 19M people and includes the Osaka Bay/Kansai area - this because it's pretty contiguous people and/or the surrounding area is dependent upon the large city). This is something I've never understood about Canada.

If that was the standard then Toronto would stretch from London to Belleville.
Greater Vancouver is 2.35m

Why does Canada do things different? I mean, all of that said area is more or less Vancouver or HUGELY dependent on it (much like in the Seattle CSA, Olympia is 60 miles away yet still pretty dependent upon Seattle).

It all just seems weird, when you try to compare places - apples don't equal oranges. Seems like Canada low-balls while the US high-balls.

This is something I've never understood about Canada.

Canada does things differently because we are a different country. Almost every developed nation on earth has its own government statistical agency that determines criteria to estimate population based on what makes sense in their country.

If we were a colony of the USA, then we'd simply take cues from them. Perhaps, they should use Stats Canada definitions. We've got a far superior statistical agency than they do. US metro figures are rather ridiculous and amount to less useful data. The distant towns they count as part of metros in the USA are far too isolated from the central city to be included. Honestly, do these people really travel 100 km to work every day?

Honestly, do these people really travel 100 km to work every day?

I've heard in discussions people using the figure of a 100 mile diameter for a city as the effective "commute limit" size. That is a 50 mile distance from the city center (80 km). Yeah, a hundred is pushing it for all but the most foolhardy.

I'm sure a few do commute, but when you live that far away, you shouldn't be included in the population of a metro area. The vast majority of people in these communities do not interact with the central city on a regular basis in any meaningful way.

Are you sure? Isn't Victoria 2.5 hours and Kelowna 4 hours

The FRASER Valley, not the Okanagan Valley :cheers:

Okay.. the current estimate
2,285,900(2.28 million)=CMA
2,877.36=Land Area
2,560,288= Lower Mainland (Vancouver-Surrey-Abbotsord-Burnaby-Mission)

Hello from Seattle. I found this cool link of your city. Panorama images from 1978 and now. Enjoy.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/fade/fadepanorama2.htm

That's a really cool site, I totally forgot about it too. I'd love to see a similar thing for other cities.

like that saying - in north america people travel 2 hours to go shopping

in england people travel 2 hours and they think they are on holiday

lol

The population of metropolitan areas are usually done by looking at a variety of things. One very important thing to be considered and this is especially true with the outlying suburbs such as Abbotsford. This is by looking at the number of workers in the labor sector. One must calculate the percentage of the workers and their destination when it comes to where they work. If there is at least 20-25 % of the labor market that works in the "metro area" mentioned here, then they would be considered part of "that" CSA. Vancouver has gone through some changes between regional districts to metropolitan city status and it will take some getting used to who is part of the new city and who isn't. If they don't, then they too, will develop their own CSA and then this will merge with yet a new Greater CSA if you will. You see this in Seattle as mentioned earlier, and you see it with the area around Los Angeles among others throughout North America. One thing about CSA's is that they must be accessible throughout the day too. Victoria and Nanaimo is taking it a bit too far. Bowen Island on the other hand isn't. It is pretty clear that many /most of the residents use the island and it is a bedroom community. Its population shows just that. It hasn't grown into anything but that. Was it not for the border, the Vancouver CSA would have encompassed the area from Squamish to Chilliwack to Bellingham. Even when I lived in the PNW, I had several friends that lived in Blaine, Sumas, Bellingham etc. and worked in Surrey, White Rock and the like. On the other hand, I knew a few people that traveled from Vancouver to Bellingham every day to go the WWU.

Kelowna isn't part of the Lower Mainland. Victoria is 2.5 hours because you have to ferry (it's only 60 miles or so point to point I think).

Anyways, Im referring mostly to this, Abbotsford is immediately next to Langley yet is not part of the Metro Vancouver (yet Langley is).

Also, there is significant commuter patterns to and from Lower Vancouver Island - yet are not considered part of Metro Vancouver. Yet IS considered part of Vancouver's market.

If this were the US, Vancouver CSA would include Victoria, Nanaimo, Whistler, Hope and everything enbetween - some 4M+ people.

Why does Canada do things different? I mean, all of that said area is more or less Vancouver or HUGELY dependent on it (much like in the Seattle CSA, Olympia is 60 miles away yet still pretty dependent upon Seattle).

It all just seems weird, when you try to compare places - apples don't equal oranges. Seems like Canada low-balls while the US high-balls.

In Japan, they don't arbitrarily draw lines like in Canada (Metro Tokyo is 35M people and includes the entire Tokyo bay area, Osaka Metro is 19M people and includes the Osaka Bay/Kansai area - this because it's pretty contiguous people and/or the surrounding area is dependent upon the large city). This is something I've never understood about Canada.