[AccessD] Useful Lists

Rockliffe Park Village was that way in downtown Ottawa until 
amalgamation in 2001.
It was admittance more by class than affluence, although 
multi-millionaires found a way in.
It was mostly Government ministers and ambassadors. I think the population
was under 2000. In the 80's no house was under a million.


artful at rogers.com wrote:

>I think that on both points you hit the mark. I came from a suburb of Winnipeg, Manitoba, called St. Vital. There was a time when St. Vital became a city. I think it was population-based but I was a child back then so I could be way wrong. I will research this some more.
>
>There is an oddity in Canada, private entities not part of the adjacent town, city or whatever. In Toronto, one is Wychwood Park, a private enclave that is responsible for paying its private garbage-gatherers, snow-shovellers, etc. It is surrounded by Toronto, but is somehow legally not part of Toronto. I can name several other enclaves with this status within Ontario. I don't know whether this status exists anywhere else in Canada, but I can name several places of this distinction in Ontario. Here, these places seem to be 100% white.
>
>They may or may not correspond to the gated communities in the USA; in both cases they are inhabited by no one without large funds. Some American on the list might contribute an opinion on gated communities: are the city's police permitted to enter? The fire department? Any non-resident other than a Fedex driver? Any person of color other than the previous designations? Are there any gated communities reserved for blacks or Hispanics, or are they reserved for persons of pallor? Or, alternatively, am I woefully incorrect about this, and the line of demarcation is affluence not color. Just curious.
>
>Arthur
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Stuart McLachlan <stuart at lexacorp.com.pg>
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:15:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] Useful Lists
>
>On 14 Nov 2006 at 10:20, artful at rogers.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>All these years I have been under the (clearly false) impression that
>>precise population-numbers defined these terms. Apparently I have wrong, lo
>>these decades. I have just taken a local poll (only 4 people) and the
>>agreement here is that a city is 100,000 people or more; a town is 999,999
>>people or fewer; a village is 2,000 people or fewer; a hamlet is 500 people
>>or fewer. We four Canadians readily agreed on these numbers, but that might
>>be something we picked up in school that has no relation to the larger
>>world.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>In the UK, a city  was originally a town with a cathedral. It is an actual 
>status conferred on an urban area by the monarch.
>
>I believe that in the US, individual states define their own cities in 
>legislation.
>  
>

-- 
Marty Connelly
Victoria, B.C.
Canada