Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To throw a screw into the works, what do you say about this article on the last Census?
"The population of the Vancouver CMA grew 6.5% between 2011 and 2016 after growing 9.3% between 2006 and 2011. While the population in the region keeps growing, four municipalities within the CMA now have some of the highest population density rates in the country, and the municipality of Vancouver takes the number one spot in Canada with a density rate of 5,493 people per square kilometre."
Are they measuring different than the stat that Glacierx posted " 3) Vancouver, British Columbia = 854.6 "
It seems like an awfully huge, if not impossible jump....???
I found an old stat from 2011 for my neighbourhood which is " 17,138 per square kilometre." Downtown peninsula and it must be much higher now considering all the new towers that have gone up six years.
^^^
Vancouver CMA is 'greater Vancouver' or what is its metropolitan area. Any city is going to have a core area that is dense and then peters out as it goes into suburbia/exurbia. That is the case for Toronto and Montreal as well. The density of Toronto and Montreal CMA would be less than the city proper which in turn would be less than the core urban area (which often have the DT core).
So indeed the density of all of metro Vancouver isn't going to be as dense as the core 'municipality of Vancouver'
Municipality of Vancouver (the most dense part of greater Vancouver its core)
population 631K in 114 sq kms with a pop density of 5492 per sq km
Of course there are census tracts (pockets of higher density) with greater population than the entire core. The 5492 is simply the density of the entire municipality of Vancouver. So your example of your nabe is just an example of a node of higher density. It doesn't mean all of Vancouver city proper would have that density.
Toronto city proper as with Montreal city proper are less dense than Vancouver city proper simply because they are larger cities. Toronto city proper for example puts more people into its city proper border- 2.73 million in 630 sq kms than Vancouver does in its entire metro of 2700 sq kms. That is why Toronto feels so much larger than Vancouver aside from the obvious that it is so much larger.
Old Toronto is actually the most dense part of Toronto - its core which packs in 797K people in 97 sq kms with a population density of 8210 per sq km is quite a bit more dense than Vancouver city proper.. The only reason Old Toronto isn't counted is because it isn't a municipality or city anymore (it used to be pre 1998 before amalgamation with other boroughs in current Toronto city proper). This is what i'm getting at by arbitrary boundaries and how they can lead one astray. Larger cities are more likely to have larger boundaries and thus less density but it doesn't mean that if the arbitrary boundaries were cut up, the density would be less and often quite the contrary. There are census tracts in Toronto that exceeds 50000K per sq km. The most dense part of Canada - St Jamestown in DT Toronto exceeds 60000 per sq km.
^^^
Vancouver CMA is 'greater Vancouver' or what is its metropolitan area. Any city is going to have a core area that is dense and then peters out as it goes into suburbia/exurbia. That is the case for Toronto and Montreal as well. The density of Toronto and Montreal CMA would be less than the city proper which in turn would be less than the core urban area (which often have the DT core).
So indeed the density of all of metro Vancouver isn't going to be as dense as the core 'municipality of Vancouver'
Municipality of Vancouver (the most dense part of greater Vancouver its core)
population 631K in 114 sq kms with a pop density of 5492 per sq km
Of course there are census tracts (pockets of higher density) with greater population than the entire core. The 5492 is simply the density of the entire municipality of Vancouver. So your example of your nabe is just an example of a node of higher density. It doesn't mean all of Vancouver city proper would have that density.
Toronto city proper as with Montreal city proper are less dense than Vancouver city proper simply because they are larger cities. Toronto city proper for example puts more people into its city proper border- 2.73 million in 630 sq kms than Vancouver does in its entire metro of 2700 sq kms. That is why Toronto feels so much larger than Vancouver aside from the obvious that it is so much larger.
Old Toronto is actually the most dense part of Toronto - its core which packs in 797K people in 97 sq kms with a population density of 8210 per sq km is quite a bit more dense than Vancouver city proper.. The only reason Old Toronto isn't counted is because it isn't a municipality or city anymore (it used to be pre 1998 before amalgamation with other boroughs in current Toronto city proper). This is what i'm getting at by arbitrary boundaries and how they can lead one astray. Larger cities are more likely to have larger boundaries and thus less density but it doesn't mean that if the arbitrary boundaries were cut up, the density would be less and often quite the contrary. There are census tracts in Toronto that exceeds 50000K per sq km. The most dense part of Canada - St Jamestown in DT Toronto exceeds 60000 per sq km.
It's all kind of a numbers game, like comparing real estate. The boundaries, of each city make a big difference in the numbers. Places like Calgary, whose city limits are 825 square K's, is never going to " win " the density battle within it's municipality against much smaller city limits of Vancouver.
It's all kind of a numbers game, like comparing real estate. The boundaries, of each city make a big difference in the numbers. Places like Calgary, whose city limits are 825 square K's, is never going to " win " the density battle within it's municipality against much smaller city limits of Vancouver.
This is why I don't just blindly look at the stats
I used to get into it with Americans on here in City Data C V C when they would compare their CSA metro GDP numbers with Toronto's CMA GDP numbers and they thought that it was just ok. Conflating a CSA with CMA is like conflating a transsexual beautiful person with a intersexual beautiful person - like DUH
This is why I don't just blindly look at the stats
I used to get into it with Americans on here in City Data C V C when they would compare their CSA metro GDP numbers with Toronto's CMA GDP numbers and they thought that it was just ok. Conflating a CSA with CMA is like conflating a transsexual beautiful person with a intersexual beautiful person - like DUH
Perhaps the best way to measure density is to look at riding/electoral district sizes since they're all supposed to have similar populations.
Here are the 10 smallest ridings in Canada:
1) Toronto Centre, ON = 6 km2
2) Papineau, QC = 10 km2
3) Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC = 11 km2
4) Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC = 11 km2
5) Outremont, QC = 12 km2
6) Davenport, ON = 13 km2
7) Bourassa, QC = 14 km2
8) Toronto—St. Paul's, ON = 14 km2
9) University—Rosedale, ON = 14 km2
10) Vancouver Centre, BC = 14 km2
Here are the 10 most dense ridings in Canada:
1) Toronto Centre, ON = 15,662 people/km2
2) Papineau, QC = 10,898 people/km2
3) Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC = 9,730 people/km2
4) Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC = 9,663 people/km2
5) Outremont, QC = 8,410 people/km2
6) Davenport, ON = 7,874 people/km2
7) Toronto—St. Paul's, ON = 7,427 people/km2
8) Vancouver Centre, BC = 7,320 people/km2
9) Bourassa, QC = 7,163 people/km2
10) University—Rosedale, ON = 7,043 people/km2
Perhaps the best way to measure density is to look at riding/electoral district sizes since they're all supposed to have similar populations.
Here are the 10 smallest ridings in Canada:
1) Toronto Centre, ON = 6 km2
2) Papineau, QC = 10 km2
3) Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC = 11 km2
4) Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC = 11 km2
5) Outremont, QC = 12 km2
6) Davenport, ON = 13 km2
7) Bourassa, QC = 14 km2
8) Toronto—St. Paul's, ON = 14 km2
9) University—Rosedale, ON = 14 km2
10) Vancouver Centre, BC = 14 km2
Here are the 10 most dense ridings in Canada:
1) Toronto Centre, ON = 15,662 people/km2
2) Papineau, QC = 10,898 people/km2
3) Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC = 9,730 people/km2
4) Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC = 9,663 people/km2
5) Outremont, QC = 8,410 people/km2
6) Davenport, ON = 7,874 people/km2
7) Toronto—St. Paul's, ON = 7,427 people/km2
8) Vancouver Centre, BC = 7,320 people/km2
9) Bourassa, QC = 7,163 people/km2
10) University—Rosedale, ON = 7,043 people/km2
Not sure that works, since both the size of the riding and the size of the populations would have to be the same. Some of those ridings are much larger in area, therefore decreasing the density.
Not sure that works, since both the size of the riding and the size of the populations would have to be the same. Some of those ridings are much larger in area, therefore decreasing the density.
Can you translate this into English? The populations are the same (approximately), so densely populated ridings are small in physical side.
Can you translate this into English? The populations are the same (approximately), so densely populated ridings are small in physical side.
LOL Blame it on not enough coffee.
I'm not sure ridings are any better at giving a true picture. We are still in the position of arbitrary boundaries of various sizes. Is Toronto Centre, which is 6 km2 really that more dense than Vancouver Centre, which is 14 k2? Well, yes the math says yes...but for a true picture the ridings should be the same size. Vancouver Centre is more than DOUBLE the size of Toronto Centre.
If we shrank Vancouver Centre down to 6 k2, and focused on the most dense part, downtown, the stats would say that Vancouver Centre has over 18,000 per k2. Part of the issue with Vancouver Centre is that it includes Stanley Park in it's size...even though no one lives there.
I understand now. All good points. Yes, throwing in the Stanley Park into the mix does mess with the figures. I notice that StatsCan has a figure they call "Population centres". For Vancouver it looks like this. It still takes in Stanley Park, but it only includes the higher density populated areas of Surrey and Delta.
Vancouver:
2,135,201 people.
1,856.0 people/sq. km.
Toronto:
5,429,524 people.
2,930.5 people/sq.km.
Last edited by Glacierx; 03-27-2017 at 04:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
