Canada Census 2011

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

I think Ottawa is quite nice because of the smaller population. I spend a lot of time biking or just hanging out at the parkland areas around a lot of the rivers and the Canal, although I'm sure stuff like that can be found in any big city (this is really the first city I've ever lived in). It's also pretty neat being in the city, yet constantly running into people I know, in all sorts of different places.

I would say that Ottawa is near the head of the pack in that regard. Ottawa has great green spaces and swimmable beaches right in city limits.

I think it also likely has the most Irish pubs per capita. I wish the census covered more important information like that.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It is an interesting to think back to the 60's and 70's when Alberta seemed like such a dustblown backwater and Toronto and Montreal were mythical places of unreachable wonders . . . . and now I rarely think of Toronto while Montreal is virtually invisible and basically irrelevant.

Do you feel the power?

Cowperson

It's funny that you mention Montreal, because they largely made themselves irrelevent after the Quiet Revolution. St. James Street could have continued to have been the Financial wheelhouse of the country ala Bay Street today and Toronto would have ended up an overgrown Pittsburgh.

As for Calgary and Alberta, I do notice that in Oil and Gas, the amount of money needed to be invested is so large that our domestic capital market is a smaller player and hence the 'Toronto-centrism' of our lives has really subsided. I enjoyed reading the articles today about how Western Canada in addition to having more GDP, now officially has a larger population than Quebec and the Maritimes combined. It really shows how far things have come.

[getbak]

It's amazing how many different categories StatsCan has to group this information...


Population by municipality: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...1&SR=1&S=3&O=D

Calgary is third, and in the last five years joined Toronto and Montreal as the only municipalities in Canada over 1 million people.


Population by "Population Centre": http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...5&SR=1&S=3&O=D

Calgary is fourth, and actually has fewer people in the Population Centre than in the Municipality, which doesn't make sense. Toronto's population nearly doubles, Montreal's more than doubles, and Vancouver's more than triples when comparing the two numbers. If I understand it correctly, it means that there are about 1,400 people who live inside the City of Calgary who StatsCan don't consider to live within the Calgary Population Centre.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

You have the local 'New Urbanists' to blame. Their constant 'sprawl' talk would make you believe that Calgary was at the extreme end relative to North America. While they certainly have a point about car dependancy and better city planning, the Calgary area is not as bad as it's made out to be for sprawl. It takes a visit to places where real sprawl exists (Dalls-Fort worth-Arlington Metroplex among others), to actually realize that point.

Umm... we definitely have "real" sprawl. We may not have as much of it, but certainly have it and it's definitely real. And also, it's a real problem for Calgary's sustainability and thus the wealth and lifestyles of its residents.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

I'm actually surprised our population density is as high as it is... I always thought Calgary's land area was huge compared to most other cities.

Edmonton, Halifax, Winnipeg and Saskatoon all have a larger land mass with smaller populations than Calgary.

A lot of this comparison is apples and oranges...there are parts of Halifax (or rather Halifax Regional Municipality) that are very rural...as it's the amalgamation of a number of municipalities, which add land without population.
Another factor to consider is where a city is in it's growth, and in how much unused land it has got from it's surrounding rural areas. I know that Saskatoon has a fair amount of land that is a part of the city, but is farmland destined to be developed over the next few decades.

The municipality table has things much closer...http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...=D#symbol-apop

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

By the next census, Calgary and maybe Edmonton will certainly be bigger than Ottawa.

Is that really a good thing though? Serious question for people who grew up in Calgary and live there now... has the population boom really improved the livability of the city?

There are pros and cons. I like the burst of arts and culture in the last 20 years. I don't like the larger crowds stomping around in the Rockies.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SebC

Umm... we definitely have "real" sprawl. We may not have as much of it, but certainly have it and it's definitely real. And also, it's a real problem for Calgary's sustainability and thus the wealth and lifestyles of its residents.

I'm not sure how relevant urban density numbers are, when some cities have annexed large areas of land, but have not developed those lands. Are the figures misleading?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not sure how relevant urban density numbers are, when some cities have annexed large areas of land, but have not developed those lands. Are the figures misleading?

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. But here's why we have sprawl:
- single-use zoning: check.
- low-density zoning: check
- car-dependent communities: check

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

Umm... we definitely have "real" sprawl. We may not have as much of it, but certainly have it and it's definitely real. And also, it's a real problem for Calgary's sustainability and thus the wealth and lifestyles of its residents.

You're a poster after my own heart.

[saskflames69]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Or Saskatoon. According to that data, it has a larger land area than Calgary, but about 1/5th of the population.

Also interesting to note that Canada's three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have about quadruple the population density of most other Canadian cities.

A good portion of Saskatoon is farm land owned by the U of S and undeveloped land that was annexed by the city years ago. My grandfather worked for the city planning department for a number of years and he was discussing this exact topic this morning with my dad.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. But here's why we have sprawl:
- single-use zoning: check.
- low-density zoning: check
- car-dependent communities: check

What I was trying to say (not very well) is I think some cities have large empty undeveloped spaces, which skews the urban density numbers. It could make these cities seem to be much less dense than they really are, if you only looked at the developed space.

[Muta]

Sprawl is a huge problem and Calgary's as red-handed as the biggest problem cities out there. Most of our annexed land is actually developed, unlike other cities included in that data. Troutman's right, those numbers are a bit misleading.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by troutman

What I was trying to say (not very well) is I think some cities have large empty undeveloped spaces, which skews the urban density numbers. It could make these cities seem to be much less dense than they really are, if you only looked at the developed space.

What seems like it might be getting missed here is that there is both sprawl and undeveloped space in Calgary. Yes, we have car dependent communities with low density zoning. (I'd be in favour of arbitrarily increasing everyone's zoning by 1 level across the board, ie R1-->R2, MC1-->MC2, etc) but we also have huge amounts of agricultural land on the outskirts of the developed area that has been annexed by the city for future growth. That isn't a problem at all, imo, farming is low density whether it's in the city or in Rockyview.