BC municipal elections 2011

Stats Can defines Census Metropolitan Areas as the regional definition, so if you click on that button you will see it indeed includes all of Maple Ridge. However, the "urban area" map I linked to shows only the urban portion of Maple Ridge. Stats Can defines "urban area" as an area with urban population density, with at least 1,000 population. My own preference is to define "urban" as an urban area with at least 50,000 people. This is also a component of Stats Can's definition of a Census Metropolitan Area: it includes the suburbs of an urban area with a core population of at least 50,000. So if you play with the map I linked to, you will see Abbotsford has an urban area with 138,986 people, and a CMA with 159,020 people. Chiliwack, however, is only a "Census Agglomeration" (not a CMA) because, even though its urban core has 59,453 people, the full area has only 80,892 people (less than the criterion of 100,000). Neither Abbotsford nor Chiliwack are part of the Vancouver CMA because of technical definitions you can find on the Stats Can site having to do with how many people drive to work where. Exurbs.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/geo009a-eng.cfm

However, areas of urban density, with populations between 1,000 and 50,000, which Stats Can calls "urban areas" (resulting in their statement that 80% of Canadians live in urban areas), are not "rural" either. They are small urban, or small-town. When someone says "rural" in Ontario, it usually turns out they mean "rural and small-town."

Here are my definitions via a link too.

People seem to be confusing the adjective urban with the noun urban by claiming the noun 'urban area' the same as the adjective 'urban' as in a type of development. So perhaps these definitions are better.

Central City: The central city or core city is the municipality in an urban area or metropolitan area that emerged historically as the most prominent in the urban area. Almost without exception, the name of the core city is also shared with the urban area and the metropolitan area.

The Urban Core: Generally the urban core or the inner city is in the central city. Sometimes the urban core includes adjacent municipalities that developed during the same period as the core city. For example, Frederiksburg is a part of the core of the Copenhagen urban area, L’Hospitalet is a part of the core of the Barcelona urban area, and Cambridge is a part of the core of the Boston urban area core.

These two are 'urban' in the sense of an adjective.

Suburb: Collectively, the suburbs are all of the continuous urbanization that extends beyond the core city (all of the urban area except the historical core municipality and other adjacent historical municipalities). A specific suburb can be an individual municipality or community in the suburbs. For example, the cities of Evanston and Oak Park are suburbs of Chicago. In the London area, municipalities that are outside the Greater London Authority, but inside the greenbelt are suburbs, such as Epsom and Ottershaw (the London urban area is within the green
belt).

This is 'suburban' in the sense of an adjective.

Exurban: Exurban refers to non-rural development that is within a metropolitan area, but outside the urban area. There are two types of exurban development:

Exurb: An exurb is a municipality (or a community) or urban area in a metropolitan area that is separated by rural territory from the principal urban area. For example, DeKalb and Kankakee are exurbs of Chicago. The urban areas that are within the London metropolitan area, but outside the greenbelt, are exurbs, such as St. Albans and Milton Keynes.

Low Density Exurban Development: Low density exurban development is generally large lot residential development that is not of sufficient density to be considered urban and is not agricultural.

These three are 'exurban' in the sense of an adjective.

So, Burnaby is most definitely not captured within the central city definition. It is arguably within the urban core, though I'd put it within the suburb definition. Maple Ridge is possibly captured by the suburban definition, considering continued sprawl of the urban area, but traditionally has been exurban and is definitely low density. How one defines a given municipality changes along with the pace of development.

So what's your point then? That to be fair we ought to change the regional name to something else, which would give these other municipalities the recognition they deserve? Mission was incorporated in 1892 too, so I geuss it's urban. After all it's relativley adjacent to Vancouver and developed at the same time, therefore it's urban according to your reading. In fact if we want to be very literal New West was incorporated far before Vancouver, as were many other regional municipalities, so we probably should call the Metro Vancouver Metro New Westminster instead. But since we're being tedious and pedantic, I can easily point out what you've overlooked too.

Which, brings this back to your whole complaint that the municipal elections in other municipalities didn't receive as much attention as the City of Vancouver's. I don't think you can honestly argue that Burnaby has "emerged historically as the most prominent [municipality] in the [Vancouver] urban area." Nor does it meet the second criterion of being the municipality people associate with the entire region. It would be like arguing that people in Montreal ought to talk about the mayor of Laval during municipal elections there, or that people in Toronto ought to talk more about the mayor of Mississauga than they do Rob Ford. If that is your point, because these traditionally suburban cities now share characteristics as defined by the definition of 'The Urban Core', then your point is patently absurd.

All I know is that if a Vancouver school board candidate farted that was news for the Lowermainland's daily papers, but the issues that were happening in other communities were given almost no notice.  Take a look just up the Valley where the whole council was replaced because of how they handled grow-op inspections.  Or look at Whistler where wholesale change happpens over pay parking.  Of couse if it doesn't happen in Vancouver it can't be a story worth reading.

Actually it hasn't changed since I made it above and quite frankly I can't figure out why you are arguing about it.  You got it wrong!!!  Burnaby is not a suburb of Vancouver.  Just because you can't see the difference between the urban core and Abbotsford is not something I can change.  If you don't believe me for whatever reason you should believe Wilf.  

I don't think that elections in other major municipalities, except possibly Surrey, are worthy of as much attention because frankly their issues aren't all that interesting, diverse or important. Burnaby may not be simply a mall, SFU and a bunch of houses anymore, but to claim that Metrotown is akin (in importance, influence, etc) to Downtown Vancouver is absurd.

In central cities you usually have clashes of economic classes and cultures that you don't have to the same degree in such a confined space outside of these areas. There are also other issues like gentrification, where the central city becomes just as exclusive as 'elite neighbourhoods' like the British Properties or Shaughnessy, that aren't happening to the same degree in Metrotown but obviously are in the West End, Fairview and Mount Pleasant all of which are central city neighbourhoods. To further expand upon this point, if one looks at the rennoviction crisis in the West End and the massive jump in average rental costs, one can see that. Especially if you compare that to average wages, which aren't all that different across the region, thus making the issue more acute in Vancouver. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere, just that it's more acute here hence worthy of more attention in highlighting the affordability crisis.

At the same time as this is happening, the central city tends to act as a dumping ground, where most of the social services more marginalized people depend on are located, so as to keep them away from the 'good' citizens in the rest of the region. This, in turn, leads to these neighbourhoods being starkly divided between rich and poor with an ever decreasing (proportional) population of working and middle class people.

Also, the central city is where most regional attractions are, hence it draws the biggest number of visitors, workers and residents to use such facilities putting a greater tax burden on the residents of Vancouver than it does the residents of Burnaby, Richmond, etc. One can't argue that there's an equivalent movement of people coming downtown for Canucks games, as there is people going to Coquitlam to watch some BCJHL team play? Or that there's an equivalent movement of people going downtown to use the Vancouver Public Library as there are going from Vancouver to Burnaby, Richmond, etc? Or that there's an equivalent number of people from outside Vancouver going to use Stanley Park and other municipal parks and community centres as there are going from Vancouver to Burnaby to use Deer Lake Park and other municipal parks and community centres?

Besides, since when has the MSM been fair, or why should anyone expect it to be? After all it's a business and what exactly is interesting or profitable about covering a mayoral race where the mayor wins with over 60, 70 or even 80 percent of the vote? Not that I'm saying that the MSM even covered these issues, when there where Chickens, Occupations and Riots to focus on. Just that the substantive issues at least are more interesting from a central city perspective.