Census 2016 (real estate, neighbourhood, university)

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by Glacierx

So anyway, back to the Census data. Here is a list of the 10 most dense cities in Canada:

1. Notre-Dame-des-Anges, Quebec = 8548.4 people per sq. km.
2. Vancouver, British Columbia = 5492.6 people per sq. km.
3. Westmount, Quebec = 5024.9 people per sq. km.
4. Côte-Saint-Luc, Quebec = 4662.5 people per sq. km.
5. Montréal, Quebec = 4662.1 people per sq. km.
6. New Westminster, British Columbia = 4543.4 people per sq. km.
7. North Vancouver, British Columbia = 4465.1 people per sq. km.
8. Victoria, British Columbia = 4405.8 people per sq. km.
9. Toronto, Ontario = 4334.4 people per sq. km.
10. White Rock, British Columbia = 3893.1 people per sq. km.

Notre-Dame-des-Anges, Quebec, population 394. so...

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by botticelli

Notre-Dame-des-Anges, Quebec, population 394. so...

The problem with these densities is they are not taking into account apples to apples comparisons. City boundaries are entirely arbitrary. For example, the most dense area of Canada by far is St Jamestown in DT Toronto. Is it a city, well no but at the same time its kind of silly comparing a city with a much smaller arbitrary boundary than a much larger metropolis. The larger the metro area like Toronto the more its boundaries expand so I look at this list as rather meaningless because the definition of city is simply not consistent from one municipality to the other.

The population of Notre-Dame-des-anges being 394 in .004 sq km is a perfect example of a ludicrous municipal boundary. There are more people living in a condo or large apartment building in Toronto than that municipality for pete sake, as would population density of that building being greater than Notre-Dame-des-Anges. should we start declaring buildings municipal boundaries, no but that list is rather laughable if you look between the lines.

Westmount is another example of a ludicrous 'city' -it is 4sq km lol - like that is not a city its an enclave in Montreal. Cityplace has more density and is probably in a comparable area as Westmount.

Vancouver as a city has 631K people in 114 sq kms but if you look at Old Toronto there are 797K people in 97sq km - meaning Old Toronto is quite a fair bit more dense than the city of Vancouver in a fairly comparable area. The city of Toronto (A much larger urban area over 630sq kms) is simply not comparable to the city of Vancouver.

[Acajack]

Notre-Dame-des-Anges is actually an oddity in that it's a tiny municipal enclave in the middle of downtown Quebec City. In a sense, it's even more "ludicrous" than Westmount is.

[Glacierx]

I agree. People in Toronto are more dense than people in Vancouver.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Glacierx

I agree. People in Toronto are more dense than people in Vancouver.

Quite possibly, and we are pretty dense here.

[Glacierx]

Fastest growing place in Canada was Lac-Matapédia , QC, which grew by 3340%! Not hard to do when you go from 5 to 172 people.

Fastest growing city in Canada by total numbers:

1) Calgary = +142,387
2) Edmonton = +120,345
3) Toronto = +116,511

Fasting shrinking cities in Canada by total numbers:
1) Cape Breton, NS = -3,113
2) St John, NB = -2,488
3) North Bay, ON = -2,098

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by Glacierx

Fastest growing place in Canada was Lac-Matapédia , QC, which grew by 3340%! Not hard to do when you go from 5 to 172 people.

Fastest growing city in Canada by total numbers:

1) Calgary = +142,387
2) Edmonton = +120,345
3) Toronto = +116,511

Fasting shrinking cities in Canada by total numbers:
1) Cape Breton, NS = -3,113
2) St John, NB = -2,488
3) North Bay, ON = -2,098

There isn't as big of a point in comparing city population by total growth only because they are rather meaningless measures without looking at CMA population growth, particularly for larger cities like Toronto and Montreal. Once you become a certain size its the population of the contiguous urbanized area or region that is more important than city. It would be like looking at San Francisco, which is technically a smaller city than Calgary and coming to the conclusion that Calgary is 'bigger' with more absolute growth. While that is technically true, S.F frames itself in metro terms as the Bay area and really as it should. The Bay Area as would the GTA are attracting more absolute numbers into their regions than either Calgary or Edmonton CMA and that is because the bigger you become, the more you are seen as a region and not just a city proper. Boston is another example whereby its not a very big city proper, but it is a fairly large metro.

Population of census metropolitan areas

I think once Calgary has a CMA population of 3-4 million, the core city will have to compete more with other satellite cities for growth but ultimately they will all be anchored by the city of Calgary not Airdrie or Okotoks even if they are growing faster than Calgary. Its kind of like
Smaller cities like Calgary and Edmonton are more compact metro areas than the Toronto CMA (which grew by 250K between 2013-2016 vs about 120K for Calgary CMA from 2013 to 2016). Calgary and Edmonton have impressive growth rates both for city and CMA but they are still not large CMA's to compete with the Toronto's and Bay Area's of the world and once you frame your mind away from meaningless arbitrary city proper borders and look at contiguous urbanized areas as a better guide of how 'big' a city is and how its urban area is growing as a whole I think you'd find more meaning in that.
when someone from Vaughan, Laval or say Airdrie travel abroad - none of them say they are from those 'cities' - they say they are from Toronto, Montreal or Calgary.

I'm not saying city proper growth doesn't have a place - it does but in isolation from CMA growth it only tells a part of the story and the bigger you get, the more important CMA becomes to reflect how you are growing.

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by Glacierx

I agree. People in Toronto are more dense than people in Vancouver.

Hey just having a discussion here and trying to see beyond the narrow frame of view that some stats would lead us down. No need to be rude at someone else's expense lol - though perhaps i'm so dense and happy living in the centre of the Canadian universe, the largest urban agglomeration by far in our country and the only Alpha class city in it :P

Originally Posted by Acajack

Notre-Dame-des-Anges is actually an oddity in that it's a tiny municipal enclave in the middle of downtown Quebec City. In a sense, it's even more "ludicrous" than Westmount is.

It would be like me going around and saying that the Toronto CMA is more dense than New York CSA. While technically true New York CSA spans several States and covers almost 35K square kilometres. Truth is that New York city and probably even some satellite cities that are very contiguous to it would clobber the GTA in population and density. I'm big enough to say it without getting all butt hurt about it

I kind of like that New York go getter/exceptional attitude that is unapologetic - it might be a bit to much at times but I find the opposite is is too SloMo..

[Glacierx]

Originally Posted by fusion2

There isn't as big of a point in comparing city population by total growth only because they are rather meaningless measures without looking at CMA population growth, particularly for larger cities like Toronto and Montreal.

Good point. Let's compare only cities in Canada large enough to have a CMA designation. Now, the density of CMAs is completely bonkers as well, or at least they are if you includes the CAs (Census agglomerations). For example, Quesnel, BC, has a massive CA, which includes Barkerville some 120km to the east of the city (and most of the highway in uninhabited), plus some 120km to the west which is also very sparsely populated. You might say, "well, people in Wells and Barkerville go shopping in Quesnel," but if you use this criteria, people in Horsefly and Anahim Lake go shopping in Williams Lake, but they aren't part of the Williams Lake CA.

Oh, and the small city of Dawson Creek, BC, is one of the densest CA's in BC and Canada.

For density, it probably only makes sense to look at the CMAs.

Here are all 37 CMAs in Canada by density (people/sq. km):

1) Toronto, Ontario = 1003.8
2) Montréal, Quebec = 890.2
3) Vancouver, British Columbia = 854.6
4) Hamilton, Ontario = 544.9
5) Victoria, British Columbia = 528.3
6) Kitchener - Cambridge - Waterloo, Ontario = 480.1
7) Oshawa, Ontario = 420.3
8) Windsor, Ontario = 322
9) Abbotsford - Mission, British Columbia = 297.3
10) St. Catharines - Niagara, Ontario = 290.6
11) Ottawa - Gatineau (Ontario part), Ontario = 272.5
12) Calgary, Alberta = 272.5
13) Guelph, Ontario = 256.1
14) St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador = 255.9
15) Québec, Quebec = 234.8
16) Barrie, Ontario = 219.4
17) Ottawa - Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec = 195.6
18) London, Ontario = 185.6
19) Trois-Rivières, Quebec = 150
20) Winnipeg, Manitoba = 146.7
21) Sherbrooke, Quebec = 145.3
22) Edmonton, Alberta = 140
23) Brantford, Ontario = 125.1
24) Ottawa - Gatineau (Quebec part), Quebec = 106.2
25) Kingston, Ontario = 83.1
26) Peterborough, Ontario = 80.8
27) Belleville, Ontario = 77.4
28) Halifax, Nova Scotia = 73.4
29) Kelowna, British Columbia = 67.1
30) Saguenay, Quebec = 58.3
31) Moncton, New Brunswick = 56.6
32) Regina, Saskatchewan = 54.7
33) Saskatoon, Saskatchewan = 50.1
34) Thunder Bay, Ontario = 47.6
35) Greater Sudbury, Ontario = 42
36) Lethbridge, Alberta = 39.5
37) Saint John, New Brunswick = 36

For growth rates, it makes sense to use both CMAs and CAs. Here is the top 25 (% increase):
1) Sylvan Lake, Alberta = 19.6
2) Wasaga Beach, Ontario = 17.9
3) Okotoks, Alberta = 17.8
4) Lloydminster (Saskatchewan part), Saskatchewan = 17
5) Steinbach, Manitoba = 17
6) Calgary, Alberta = 14.6
7) Edmonton, Alberta = 13.9
8) Canmore, Alberta = 13.9
9) Squamish, British Columbia = 13.8
10) Grande Prairie, Alberta = 13.5
11) Collingwood, Ontario = 13.3
12) Winkler, Manitoba = 12.9
13) Saskatoon, Saskatchewan = 12.5
14) Lloydminster, Alberta/Saskatchewan = 12.3
15) Regina, Saskatchewan = 11.8
16) Strathmore, Alberta = 11.8
17) Lacombe, Alberta = 11.5
18) Red Deer, Alberta = 10.9
19) Lethbridge, Alberta = 10.8
20) Wood Buffalo, Alberta = 9.6
21) Cowansville, Quebec = 9.3
22) Lloydminster (Alberta part), Alberta = 8.9
23) Hawkesbury (Quebec part), Quebec = 8.5
24) Kelowna, British Columbia = 8.4
25) Camrose, Alberta = 8.4
26) Whitehorse, Yukon = 8.4

Here are the bottom 25:
1) Campbellton (Quebec part), Quebec = -20.8
2) Campbellton, New Brunswick/Quebec = -9.3
3) Campbellton (New Brunswick part), New Brunswick = -6.6
4) Elliot Lake, Ontario = -5.3
5) New Glasgow, Nova Scotia = -3.7
6) Timmins, Ontario = -3.2
7) Pembroke, Ontario = -3.1
8) Cape Breton, Nova Scotia = -2.9
9) Prince Rupert, British Columbia = -2.8
10) Hawkesbury (Ontario part), Ontario = -2.7
11) Baie-Comeau, Quebec = -2.7
12) Bathurst, New Brunswick = -2.6
13) North Bay, Ontario = -2.6
14) Matane, Quebec = -2.4
15) Saint John, New Brunswick = -2.2
16) Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario = -2.1
17) Miramichi, New Brunswick = -2.1
18) Chatham-Kent, Ontario = -2
19) Quesnel, British Columbia = -1.8
20) Thetford Mines, Quebec = -1.7
21) Kenora, Ontario = -1.6
22) Port Alberni, British Columbia = -1.4
23) Hawkesbury, Ontario/Quebec = -1.3
24) Leamington, Ontario = -1.2
25) Brockville, Ontario = -1.2
26) Edmundston, New Brunswick = -1.2
27) Williams Lake, British Columbia = -1.2

In terms of total numbers of people moving to CMAs and CAs, here are the top 20:
1) Toronto, Ontario = 344976
2) Calgary, Alberta = 177770
3) Montréal, Quebec = 164849
4) Edmonton, Alberta = 161557
5) Vancouver, British Columbia = 150103
6) Ottawa - Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec = 68864
7) Ottawa - Gatineau (Ontario part), Ontario = 54818
8) Winnipeg, Manitoba = 48471
9) Québec, Quebec = 32986
10) Saskatoon, Saskatchewan = 32880
11) Kitchener - Cambridge - Waterloo, Ontario = 27511
12) Hamilton, Ontario = 26492
13) Regina, Saskatchewan = 24962
14) Oshawa, Ontario = 23671
15) Victoria, British Columbia = 23190
16) London, Ontario = 19283
17) Kelowna, British Columbia = 15043
18) Ottawa - Gatineau (Quebec part), Quebec = 14046
19) St. Catharines - Niagara, Ontario = 13890
20) Halifax, Nova Scotia = 13062

Here are the bottom 20 (there are 170 CMAs/CAs in Canada):
1) Cape Breton, Nova Scotia = -2897
2) Saint John, New Brunswick = -2855
3) Chatham-Kent, Ontario = -2033
4) North Bay, Ontario = -1863
5) Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario = -1641
6) Campbellton, New Brunswick/Quebec = -1615
7) Timmins, Ontario = -1377
8) New Glasgow, Nova Scotia = -1322
9) Brantford, Ontario = -1298
10) Sarnia, Ontario = -980
11) Campbellton (New Brunswick part), New Brunswick = -925
12) Bathurst, New Brunswick = -826
13) Baie-Comeau, Quebec = -773
14) Pembroke, Ontario = -748
15) Campbellton (Quebec part), Quebec = -690
16) Leamington, Ontario = -618
17) Elliot Lake, Ontario = -607
18) Miramichi, New Brunswick = -592
19) Thetford Mines, Quebec = -479
20) Brockville, Ontario = -471

PS: Whitehorse accounted for 111% of the Yukon's growth.

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by Glacierx

Good point. Let's compare only cities in Canada large enough to have a CMA designation. Now, the density of CMAs is completely bonkers as well, or at least they are if you includes the CAs (Census agglomerations). For example, Quesnel, BC, has a massive CA, which includes Barkerville some 120km to the east of the city (and most of the highway in uninhabited), plus some 120km to the west which is also very sparsely populated. You might say, "well, people in Wells and Barkerville go shopping in Quesnel," but if you use this criteria, people in Horsefly and Anahim Lake go shopping in Williams Lake, but they aren't part of the Williams Lake CA.

.

Good information. I think there has to be a sweet spot for measuring a metro area. I find Canadian measures when it comes to CMA's sometimes too conservative. On the Flip side I find the U.S generally way too liberal with their CSA's in that they measure far flung counties that are not really connected in any meaningful contiguous urbanized way other than say a highway. Hamilton, Toronto and Oshawa CMA's (plus some smaller connected one's) should be all connected in one CMA as it is one large uninterrupted urbanized area with no discernable break other than imaginary lines. Barrie and Kitchener/Waterloo and Cambridge on the other hand are really only connected to the GTA by a highway - to me not part of one large urbanized area.

It would be interesting if Calgary and Edmonton were closer to one another. Fusing those two together would instantly create the 3rd largest city in the country and with their combined growth rates over the last 5 years it would be growing like crazy. Alberta (Saskatchewan as well) kind of reminds me of Texas and Ohio in that there isn't one primate city in the Province/State but multiple large cities of almost equal size.