Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Is that so?
Directly from StatsCan:
---------------------DENSITY----------LAND AREA (SQ.KM)---------RATIO
Calgary (City): -----1,360.2/kmē --------------726.5 ---------------1.87
Vancouver(City): ---5,039.0/kmē -------------114.71 ---------------44.0
Calgary's urban sprawl is assumedly MUCH, MUCH bigger. Each Calgarian has approximately 24x as much space as a Vancouverite does, given City boundaries and population.
Let's do a Metropolitan Area calculation as well for comparison's sake:
---------------------DENSITY----------LAND AREA (SQ.KM)---------RATIO
Calgary (Metro): -----211.3/kmē ------------5107.43 ---------------0.041
Vancouver (Metro): --735.6/kmē ------------2877.36 ---------------0.256
Calgary's urban sprawl is, again, assumedly MUCH, MUCH bigger. Each Calgarian has approximately 6x as much space as a Vancouverite does, given each City's Metro Area boundaries and population.
Problems associated with urban sprawl? Perhaps, but not really what I was trying to discuss.
Extent of urban sprawl? Calgary wins this HANDS DOWN.
|
I'm confused. What does the "ratio" mean? Are the units of the ratio not 1/(km^4).... what is that?
If I want space per person, can I not invert the density to get:
CAL: 1/1360.2 = 0.000735 km^2/person
VAN: 1/5039 = 0.000198 km^2/person
The ratio between these two is 3.70. I would interpret that as each Calgarian having 3.7046 times the space of a Vancouverite, not 24x.