| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
Bloomberg recently reported that Canada admitted 321,065 permanent residents last year. This is up 12% from 2017, where the country admitted 286,479. Last year was also the largest cohort since 1913 (the year before World War I), where the country admitted just over 400,000 people.
Here is a chart from Bloomberg (it is interactive if you click through):
Of course, Canada was a much smaller country back in 1913 (about 7.6 million people), and so on a percentage basis we are much lower than where we were at the beginning of the 20th century. We'd have to admit close to 2 million permanent residents a year to get to a similar rate.
And that is not what is in the books. Here are the projected admissions for 2019 to 2021. All of the below stats are from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.
I couldn't find a geographic breakdown for last year, but in 2017, about 40% of admitted permanent residents (or 111,925 total) ended up in Ontario and about 72% ended up in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta (the top 3 provinces for this year). If we add in BC, it brings this figure up to 86%.
Here are also the top 10 countries of origin:
If you'd like to download a PDF of the full report, you can do that here.
I can’t remember where I found it, but I recently stumbled upon this video simulating the dendrochronology of U.S. immigration from 1830 to 2015.
It is part of an ongoing project by Pedro Cruz, John Wihbey, Avni Ghael, and Felipe Shibuya, and is supported by Northeastern University.
As its name suggests, the video (and broader study) uses the metaphor of a tree (and its growth rings) to explain historical immigration to the U.S.
If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[vimeo 276140430 w=640 h=280]
Last week, Joe Berridge, Partner at Urban Strategies, gave a presentation at the Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance titled, Toronto: The Accidental Metropolis. I’ve seen Joe give similar presentations to this one before, and I always thoroughly enjoy his focus on Toronto’s position as a global city.
Here is a slide from the presentation that projects out Toronto’s population to 2071 and compares it to the largest cities in the US.
Bloomberg recently reported that Canada admitted 321,065 permanent residents last year. This is up 12% from 2017, where the country admitted 286,479. Last year was also the largest cohort since 1913 (the year before World War I), where the country admitted just over 400,000 people.
Here is a chart from Bloomberg (it is interactive if you click through):
Of course, Canada was a much smaller country back in 1913 (about 7.6 million people), and so on a percentage basis we are much lower than where we were at the beginning of the 20th century. We'd have to admit close to 2 million permanent residents a year to get to a similar rate.
And that is not what is in the books. Here are the projected admissions for 2019 to 2021. All of the below stats are from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.
I couldn't find a geographic breakdown for last year, but in 2017, about 40% of admitted permanent residents (or 111,925 total) ended up in Ontario and about 72% ended up in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta (the top 3 provinces for this year). If we add in BC, it brings this figure up to 86%.
Here are also the top 10 countries of origin:
If you'd like to download a PDF of the full report, you can do that here.
I can’t remember where I found it, but I recently stumbled upon this video simulating the dendrochronology of U.S. immigration from 1830 to 2015.
It is part of an ongoing project by Pedro Cruz, John Wihbey, Avni Ghael, and Felipe Shibuya, and is supported by Northeastern University.
As its name suggests, the video (and broader study) uses the metaphor of a tree (and its growth rings) to explain historical immigration to the U.S.
If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[vimeo 276140430 w=640 h=280]
Last week, Joe Berridge, Partner at Urban Strategies, gave a presentation at the Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance titled, Toronto: The Accidental Metropolis. I’ve seen Joe give similar presentations to this one before, and I always thoroughly enjoy his focus on Toronto’s position as a global city.
Here is a slide from the presentation that projects out Toronto’s population to 2071 and compares it to the largest cities in the US.
But the two slides that have been really making the rounds online are the following ones. The first is a rendering of what downtown Toronto looked like in 2000.
I remember this time clearly. Queen West seemed to end at Spadina. King West and Ossington weren’t things. And “Richmond and Adelaide” felt like the greatest club district in the world. (If you’re not from Toronto, these references will likely mean nothing to you. Sorry.)
The second slide is a rendering of what Toronto will look like in 2025. The transformation is just incredible.
I’ve seen some people comment that the Toronto of 2000 was relatively affordable; the Toronto of 2018 is unaffordable; and the Toronto of 2025 will be even more unaffordable with all of this new development.
But I don’t understand that logic. Considering the growth rate shown in the first slide, imagine how unaffordable this city would be if we weren’t building new places for people to live and new places for people to work.
For the full slide deck, go here. And for recent aerial photos of Toronto’s downtown core, check out my Instagram page.
But the two slides that have been really making the rounds online are the following ones. The first is a rendering of what downtown Toronto looked like in 2000.
I remember this time clearly. Queen West seemed to end at Spadina. King West and Ossington weren’t things. And “Richmond and Adelaide” felt like the greatest club district in the world. (If you’re not from Toronto, these references will likely mean nothing to you. Sorry.)
The second slide is a rendering of what Toronto will look like in 2025. The transformation is just incredible.
I’ve seen some people comment that the Toronto of 2000 was relatively affordable; the Toronto of 2018 is unaffordable; and the Toronto of 2025 will be even more unaffordable with all of this new development.
But I don’t understand that logic. Considering the growth rate shown in the first slide, imagine how unaffordable this city would be if we weren’t building new places for people to live and new places for people to work.
For the full slide deck, go here. And for recent aerial photos of Toronto’s downtown core, check out my Instagram page.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
