[flar]

This is a breakdown of the urban and rural components of Canadian census metropolitan areas, using 2006 Census data. The urban area population can often give a better idea of a city's size than CMA. We can also see from this breakdown how much of each CMA's population is rural.




'Urban Area' is an area with a population of at least 1,000 and no fewer than 400 persons per square kilometre.

The core urban area population consists of all urban areas (as defined above) that are contiguous with the urban core of the CMA.

'Urban fringe' includes all small urban areas within a CMA that are not contiguous with the urban core of the CMA.

'Other urban cores' are also not contiguous with the urban core of the CMA. These are nearby towns and cities that fall within the CMA boundary.

'Rural fringe' is all territory within a CMA not classified as an urban core or an urban fringe.


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/cma_urban_rural_components.jpg


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k28/segaert/oddstuff/cma_urban_rural_components2.jpg

[240glt]

There's a whole pile of municipalities missing that make up Edmonton metro

[flar]

There's a whole pile of municipalities missing that make up Edmonton metro

They aren't missing, they just aren't named here. The entire CMA is accounted for, the "missing pile of municipalities" are either contiguous with Edmonton's core urban area or included in urban fringe. If you look at Toronto for example, places like Mississauga or Markham are not named either, because they are part of Toronto's contiguous urban area. Furthermore, municipal boundaries are irrelevant to this data. This looks at census tracts and determines whether they are urban or rural and whether they are contiguous with the urban core or not.

[240glt]

^ Yes, I see that now, as all the actual numbers make sense, except that they're using CMA population data from 2006... but I don't think a new metro census has been done yet

[MolsonExport]

Interesting data. I've always remarked that when you see the city limits sign for Ottawa (with pop data) that you still need to drive for 20 minutes through buttfuck nowhere. London is similar.

[waterloowarrior]

Kitchener-Waterloo, the most urban metro in Canada... :)

[jeremy_haak]

Interesting data. I've always remarked that when you see the city limits sign for Ottawa (with pop data) that you still need to drive for 20 minutes through buttfuck nowhere. London is similar.

I'm wondering if the greenbelt means that Kanata and Orleans end up being in the urban fringe.

[flar]

I'm wondering if the greenbelt means that Kanata and Orleans end up being in the urban fringe.

I don't have the 2006 urban area maps, but in 2001 Kanata was classified as urban fringe. Orleans is definitely part of the urban core.

[Spocket]

I don't have the 2006 urban area maps, but in 2001 Kanata was classified as urban fringe. Orleans is definitely part of the urban core.

That's why this is a little confusing (but it's still very interesting so thank you :tup: )
Kanata and Orleans aren't contiguous with the Ottawa urban area thanks to the Greenbelt. It seems rather arbitrary to claim that Kanata is urban fringe while Orleans is urban core considering they're both practically reflections of each other but on either side of the urban core. Same goes for Edmonton with St. Albert and Sherwood Park (vis-a-vis Leduc) As for Toronto , well how did they decide where the built up area of Toronto becomes the built-up area of Hamilton ?

[LeftCoaster]

Kitchener-Waterloo, the most urban metro in Canada... :)

Weird... I could have sworn none of Kitchner was urban :D

[Acajack]

I'm wondering if the greenbelt means that Kanata and Orleans end up being in the urban fringe.

Good question. That said, it is true that the city of Ottawa has a huge rural component compared to most other large cities in Canada. As MolsonExport said, you enter into the city limits way before (as much as 45 minutes depending on which direction you’re coming from) hitting anything even remotely (sub)urban. I believe Ottawa bills itself as Canada’s largest rural/farming city.

[flar]

That's why this is a little confusing (but it's still very interesting so thank you :tup: )
Kanata and Orleans aren't contiguous with the Ottawa urban area thanks to the Greenbelt. It seems rather arbitrary to claim that Kanata is urban fringe while Orleans is urban core considering they're both practically reflections of each other but on either side of the urban core. Same goes for Edmonton with St. Albert and Sherwood Park (vis-a-vis Leduc) As for Toronto , well how did they decide where the built up area of Toronto becomes the built-up area of Hamilton ?



There are five urban census tracts that "touch" and thus connect Orleans to the rest of Ottawa. Blackburn Hamlet helps bridge the gap too--although some areas are not connected by road, the distance between "urbanized" areas can be measured in metres.

Toronto and Hamilton are technically one urban area, Statscan uses the CMA boundary (Burlington/Oakville border) to separate them.

[salvius]

Weird... I could have sworn none of Kitchner was urban :D

Hah... Kinda true, yeah, considering the 400 ppsq limit that Statcan uses to separate the UA areas is highly conservative and would, realistically, compromise of urbs, suburbs, and exurbs. But, Kitchener-Waterloo isn't really so bad. The planning department, especially on the Waterloo side, has its crap together, with some exceptions. It's turning into an OK place slowly.

--

Flar, I must ask, how come you are not in the field or urban planning?

[Spocket]

There are five urban census tracts that "touch" and thus connect Orleans to the rest of Ottawa. Blackburn Hamlet helps bridge the gap too--although some areas are not connected by road, the distance between "urbanized" areas can be measured in metres.

Toronto and Hamilton are technically one urban area, Statscan uses the CMA boundary (Burlington/Oakville border) to separate them.

I understand that but on the other side of Ottawa, Bell's Corner functions in place of Blackburn Hamlet to "connect" Kanata to Ottawa. That's why I find it somewhat arbitrary to say that Orleans is connected while Kanata isn't.
Anyway, tomato, tomahto I guess.

[Mille Sabords]

I don't have the 2006 urban area maps, but in 2001 Kanata was classified as urban fringe. Orleans is definitely part of the urban core.

Yeah, it's funny how they finally came up with a list that bumps Calgary and Edmonton up over Ottawa. Shouldn't be surprising with a Prime Minister from Alberta. Keep trying folks, it's just not gonna happen. :D The harder you try to pass us, the more you'll get frustrated.

[LeftCoaster]

Yeah, this list is definetly Harpers doing... :rolleyes:

It was actually one of his first acts in office; replace everyone incharge of this study with his own people just to fabricate the list to make Calgary and Edmonton appear larger than Ottawa...

[harls]

um, didn't Flar do this on his own?

[mylesmalley]

I'm curious how large industrial areas would affect this. Would a residential area that is completely cut off from the rest of a city by a large industrial area (say, 3km), still be considered part of the urban core, or would that be urban fringe?

[flar]

These classifications are largely automatic. I suppose census tract boundaries could be manipulated, but basically if a tract has a density of 400 persons per square km and a population of 1000, it's urban. If an urban census tract touches another urban census tract that is part of the urban core, it becomes part of the urban area.



um, didn't Flar do this on his own?

I just presented existing data in a slightly different way (eg: % of cma that is rural). I came across this data while looking for something else and thought it was interesting.




I'm curious how large industrial areas would affect this. Would a residential area that is completely cut off from the rest of a city by a large industrial area (say, 3km), still be considered part of the urban core, or would that be urban fringe?

Good question, it's likely to still be urban core. Usually industrial census tracts are large in area and include some surrounding residential. Because the cutoff for "urban" is so low (density of 400 per km2) the industrial census tracts usually end up being part of the urban area. I think there are actually a few other rules at play here too, I believe they have something to do with a tract being urban if it is surrounded by other urban census tracts.





Flar, I must ask, how come you are not in the field or urban planning?

I've applied for city/planning jobs before, but I don't have the right credentials.

[highdensitysprawl]

Yeah, it's funny how they finally came up with a list that bumps Calgary and Edmonton up over Ottawa. Shouldn't be surprising with a Prime Minister from Alberta. Keep trying folks, it's just not gonna happen. :D The harder you try to pass us, the more you'll get frustrated.

Based on some of the whining that goes on within this board if anybody dare infer that Calgary is anything less than a world class city that is full of rubes and that the major posters on this board are eastern Canada centric people, then nothing surprises me.

[highdensitysprawl]

I've applied for city/planning jobs before, but I don't have the right credentials.

That has never stopped people in the past from applying. In all honesty, for many of the position within City Planning Departments, common sense, an ability to manage your time, weigh up all the differing opinions on city issues are the most important credentials.

After a few years, the fact that you took Planning 101U in a 4 year accredited programme isn't going to mean much unless you are gunning for MCIP membership. Many key planners have geography, general arts degrees and they do fine

[someone123]

Here the biggest large lot sprawl belt, north of Halifax. It doesn't look too strange except this image is 30-40 km across (so this shot would, for example, cover most of Winnipeg). Many of the houses are on 1-2 acre lots:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1154/3266985459_0b760eb2cc_b.jpg

It is also interesting to note that the city sprawls out well beyond the boundary of the CMA.

Moncton and Saint John are fairly similar except on a smaller scale.

[mylesmalley]

Moncton is bad for suburban sprawl, but one distinction between it and Fredericton and Saint John is the lot size. Even at the fringes of the city, most lots are not much larger than those towards the centre of the city and there aren't many big gaps between subdivisions, as like those in your photo above.

[vid]

Thunder Bay's CMA excludes about 2,000 people to the north of the city and about 1,000 to the west who live in unincorporated areas but depend mainly on the city. If they were incorporated communities, they would be included in the CMA. So the 16% is actually lower than it should be.

[manny_santos]

London's CMA has been taking in more and more of the surrounding rural area. In the 2006 census they included Adelaide-Metcalfe Township for the first time, which means London's CMA stretches west to the Lambton County boundary. It makes sense because part of the urban part of Strathroy has expanded into that township, and it wouldn't make sense for part of Strathroy to be in the London CMA and the north and west parts not to be. Surprisingly they still don't include Lucan-Biddulph Township in the London CMA.

Back in the 1960s/70s, London's CMA didn't even include St. Thomas. It was just the City of London, London Township, and Westminster Township. Basically it stretched north from the Elgin County boundary to Highway 7, and would not have included the London Airport, which was located in what was at the time in West Nissouri Township. It would also have not included Delaware and Komoka.

[RTA]

Yeah, it's funny how they finally came up with a list that bumps Calgary and Edmonton up over Ottawa. Shouldn't be surprising with a Prime Minister from Alberta. Keep trying folks, it's just not gonna happen. :D The harder you try to pass us, the more you'll get frustrated.

Based on some of the whining that goes on within this board if anybody dare infer that Calgary is anything less than a world class city that is full of rubes and that the major posters on this board are eastern Canada centric people, then nothing surprises me.

Is this out-of-the-blue, unprovoked garbage necessary? Really?

[kirjtc2]

Moncton is bad for suburban sprawl, but one distinction between it and Fredericton and Saint John is the lot size. Even at the fringes of the city, most lots are not much larger than those towards the centre of the city and there aren't many big gaps between subdivisions, as like those in your photo above.

Atlantic Canada is probably the worst region in the country for uncontrolled suburban sprawl like that. I know it's not a CMA, but here's what the Fredericton area looks like:

http://www.the506.com/freddysubs.png

Everything circled in red is a 70s-80s era residential subdivision located outside city limits. The picture is about 45km across. The city's population is only 50,000 (with another 10,000 in Oromocto), and there is a lot of area within the city limits zoned for "future development". Go figure.

[someone123]

The Northeastern US is pretty similar. On some level the phenomenon exists because of a lack of regulation but also it is due to topography and pre-existing settlement patterns.

The Maritimes have a lot of little scattered towns, rural roads, and empty forested areas that are very cheap and easy to develop on a small scale, with septic fields (requires large gaps between houses) and well water. Leveling out large tracts of land and blasting to put in foundations is much more expensive.

There hills and water also make certain areas a lot more attractive. People don't mind living a bit farther out if they get to live on a lake, for example.

[mylesmalley]

^^^ Moncton and Fredericton's big problem is the lack of 'restrictive geography' coupled with cheap land prices. By restrictive geography, I mean that there's really no physical feature that impedes growth in any direction. Moncton and Fredericton are both surrounded 360' by low hills and sprawl. Whereas a city like Saint John is bounded by Ocean to the south, lake to the north, and very rocky terrain in general. The city won't really grow in all directions, but will follow the path of least resistance which seems to be along the Kennebecasis River.

Vancouver is another great example. To the north, the city is stopped by mountains. To the West, ocean, and to the south (to an extent) an international border. The city is therefore forced to grow east and vertically.

[Architype]

The "urban core" is made up of whatever is continuous to the city. There can be other historic urban cores within that, such as New Westminster within Vancouver, but since it is connected by continuous development it doesn't count as being separate. "Urban fringe" is an urban area (such as White Rock) within the CMA which is significantly seperated in some way by vacant land, forested area, or farmland. That is roughly the way Statscan defines these terms.

And, is a city necessesarily a winner because it has a higher percentage urban? In some cases it's because of the history of the area - places like Vancouver and St. John's had many other smaller communities in existence around them long before the suburban sprawl era came along, and that accounts for much of the rural and even some urban fringe. Cities like Regina, Calgary and Saskatoon did not.

[manny_santos]

Windsor is also bizarre, as it has some funny rural gaps among the urban areas.

London's modern urban core includes some areas that were previously separate. Lambeth I think is even now considered part of the urban core, since there has been development to the north. Historically the Oakridge/Byron area was physically separated by rural land which only began to develop in the 1970s with Westmount and the Oxford/Wonderland area.

[Beltliner]

And, is a city necessesarily a winner because it has a higher percentage urban? In some cases it's because of the history of the area - places like Vancouver and St. John's had many other smaller communities in existence around them long before the suburban sprawl era came along, and that accounts for much of the rural and even some urban fringe. Cities like Regina, Calgary and Saskatoon did not.

Sorry, tovarishch, but I've gotta call you on that point. Bowness and Montgomery, on the west side of the city, were chartered as independent towns in the first decade of the last century, while Midnapore, well to the south beyond Fish Creek, was served separately by the CPR and the postal service before even then. These entities were gobbled up by Calgary in the Sixties, along with the postwar garden city of Forest Lawn (and pace Churchill, "some city! some garden!" when you look at that place today) as a result of a "unicity" governance model put forward by a provincial Royal Commission a few years beforehand. While today Bowness and Montgomery don't retain much more than residually independent community identities, there are subtle differences between these parts of town and Calgary as a whole if you know where to look.

[wild wild west]

Sorry, tovarishch, but I've gotta call you on that point. Bowness and Montgomery, on the west side of the city, were chartered as independent towns in the first decade of the last century, while Midnapore, well to the south beyond Fish Creek, was served separately by the CPR and the postal service before even then. These entities were gobbled up by Calgary in the Sixties, along with the postwar garden city of Forest Lawn (and pace Churchill, "some city! some garden!" when you look at that place today) as a result of a "unicity" governance model put forward by a provincial Royal Commission a few years beforehand. While today Bowness and Montgomery don't retain much more than residually independent community identities, there are subtle differences between these parts of town and Calgary as a whole if you know where to look.

I believe Ogden was also an independent town back in the day, was it not?

[mersar]

I believe Ogden was also an independent town back in the day, was it not?

I don't believe it was actually incorporated as its own town like Bowness and Forest Lawn were. I just did some searching and found at least a few sites that referred to Ogden as "Calgary's first planned community", including reference in the "Ogden Whistle", which is a book on the history of the area (you can read it online here (http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=879081)). It's existance from what I found seems to be more of it sprung up out of necessity of housing all the workers at the CPR shops instead of them all having to take the streetcar from Calgary.

[jodelli]

Atlantic Canada is probably the worst region in the country for uncontrolled suburban sprawl like that. I know it's not a CMA, but here's what the Fredericton area looks like:



I noticed in the Annapolis Valley along the South Mountain that the area of Kentville/New Minas/Wolfville resembled a miniaturized urban area, with two small downtowns, Acadia U, and a sprawl/mall area in between. The limited access two lane highway resembled an expressway paralleling it just to the south linking them to Halifax.
Kind of like a city but rural.

[someone123]

The Sydney area, New Glasgow, and Bridgewater-Lunenburg-Mahone Bay are a bit like that as well.

Truro and Yarmouth are more examples of single towns.

Elmsdale-Enfield-Lantz is an old agricultural area that's increasingly subdivisions with commuters. People also commute from Windsor, Wolfville, Chester, or even Lunenburg to the Halifax area.

Most of the towns in the Maritimes are very old but the ones that have grown tend to be the ones with good access to cities while the more distant ones have declined.

[MolsonExport]

am I the only one that thinks that maybe, rural areas have no business being defined in the CMA? C'mon, the litmus test should be continuous development. Seems just like another way to artificially boost Metropolitan population counts, for all those dick measurers out there. (ever read the London, England conurbation posts by Ardent?)

[mylesmalley]

While I'm inclined to agree with you, MolsonExport, that's why we have Urban Areas.

[flar]

The urban area populations are better than CMA pops for some purposes. The thing that shows up in the urban/rural components of CMAs is that comparisons of CMAs can be difficult because of the wide variations in the amount of rural area included. As you can see in the list, some CMAs include huge rural areas and separate towns or cities that are quite a distance from the core city. Other CMA boundaries are hemmed in close to the actual urban boundary, as in the Golden Horseshoe.

As an aside, I often wonder if it even makes sense to talk about "metropolitan" areas for many of the smaller cities. For example, does Brantford really have that much regional influence? Its urban area is only separated from Hamilton's by like 10 km, people actually walk and bike between Dundas/Ancaster and Brantford on the rail trail.

[vaportrail]

On a CMA-related note, the 2008 estimates with 2006 census boundaries isn't expected out until April 14.

[flar]

On a CMA-related note, the 2008 estimates with 2006 census boundaries isn't expected out until April 14.

That's what everyone's been waiting for (at least on SSP ;)) I wonder what's taking them so long to release stuff based on the 2006 census?

[wild wild west]

am I the only one that thinks that maybe, rural areas have no business being defined in the CMA? C'mon, the litmus test should be continuous development. Seems just like another way to artificially boost Metropolitan population counts, for all those dick measurers out there. (ever read the London, England conurbation posts by Ardent?)

Good point, but I don't think it would drammatically affect the population of any of the larger metro areas. The US has a much broader definition of a metropolitan area; you could probably fit 3 typical Canadian metro areas in one US one, in terms of land area. Reconfiguring them to even Statscan's standards would probably drop a good dozen of them out of the million club.

[jeremy_haak]

You know, it can be fun to do these sorts of rankings, but I think that trying to perfectly compare populations of cities is really an exercise in despair. The fact of the matter is, most cities are simply too different due to historic and geographic reasons, and it is impossible to boil those differences down to a single number without losing something in the process.

Also, remember, Statistics Canada's primary goal is to produce statistics that provide good comparisons year over year for the same statistical area. This is very important for governments and also private organizations. Comparisons between different areas hold some importance as well, but I mostly of secondary concern.

[salvius]

You know, it can be fun to do these sorts of rankings, but I think that trying to perfectly compare populations of cities is really an exercise in despair. The fact of the matter is, most cities are simply too different due to historic and geographic reasons, and it is impossible to boil those differences down to a single number without losing something in the process.

Not to a single number, no, but census tracts allow you to break down populations, density, etc. of cities as they really are, not as they are defined by arbitrary municipal border. I wouldn't discount it quite so easily...

[vid]

Census tracts, with the exception of the rural census tracts in large CMAs, do not cross municipal boundaries. Census tracts borders are quite arbitrary as well, Thunder Bay has one that has 8,200 people (at least 9,000 now) in about 150sqkm, but almost all of those people live in about 5sqkm right beside other census tracts, and in that area there are still many wide open spaces between them, where if you drew a line around all of the built up areas and measured that you'd have less than 2sqkm.

Depending on what you include or leave out of the tract can also change measurements. I made a map of the density of Thunder Bay, going by Census Dissemination block, the second smallest statistic area Statistics Canada uses (block faces are smaller, but not publicly available data). But to measure the area, I excluded the road surface around the block, so many of them are artificially denser, since roads were excluded. (They're coloured black on the map anyway.) If I had drawn the boundary to the centre of the road, the city would look much less dense.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/3123492223_3ab886ec19.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidioman/3123492223/)
© Me (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vidioman/). I give myself permission to post the map that I made.

You could probably knock all of those down to the next lowest density colour (with a few exceptions) if the area was measured to the centre of the street, instead of to the curb. You also have the situation with the port area, the two islands and everything along the lake and much of the river, which is one dissemination block, with about 600 people in about 40 square kilometres. The northern island has no people but it coloured like it does, while a large apartment building in the east end is in a green area, when if it was on its own block, it would be red.

The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem) is infinite.

[mylesmalley]

Great map, Vid! How long did that take?

[flar]

Nice work on the map vid. What software do you use for the mapping? And how did you access the block data without paying? Are you in school?

[vid]

I started in October, I was going to just do the downtowns but it eventually expanded to the whole city. I have about 15 "booklets" (each one averaging 2 census tracts worth of city block information and 2 maps) of information, written myself on grid paper. I published the map in late December.

I used Inkscape, a free vector software, and traced the roads and waterways from satellite photos. To access data by city block without paying you have to use Stat Can's maps. It only gives you population and dwelling counts. I'm not in school. (I like to say "I'm uneducated", similar to unemployed. It lowers people's expectations to a more manageable amount.)

[flar]

^^whoa, that's dedication. I thought you were using sophisticated mapping software, digital boundary files and the like. All that stuff is available to make the job easier, but not all freely downloadable.

[vid]

I know. :(

There is a similar map of Toronto done by computer, using dissemination area. (The next unit up from blocks.)

http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=7238

[salvius]

Census tracts, with the exception of the rural census tracts in large CMAs, do not cross municipal boundaries. Census tracts borders are quite arbitrary as well, Thunder Bay has one that has 8,200 people (at least 9,000 now) in about 150sqkm, but almost all of those people live in about 5sqkm right beside other census tracts, and in that area there are still many wide open spaces between them, where if you drew a line around all of the built up areas and measured that you'd have less than 2sqkm.

Yeah, that's a problem, but depending on their contiguity, this may help explain the anomaly. If they all live close to each other, it does sound like it's time for SC to sever the census tract. CTs, of course, have their own peculiarities, but the point is that we're generally talking about relatively fixed population numbers.

[vid]

5950022.2 will probably be split into 5950022.5 and 5950022.6 for the 2011 census. Why tract 5950020.0 exists is beyond me, it's just a lake and a hospital, with maybe 10 houses thrown in on one side. It doesn't represent any actual neighbourhood. Downtown Fort William is split between three census tracts, my tract includes a neighbourhood over a kilometre away. In many cases they really don't make much sense. Tracts 5950100 and 5950101 include multiple municipalities in them and are pretty much useless, another bad example. The population numbers aren't even that fixed, 5950006.0 say it's population almost double but it's still less than 1,000.

City blocks have similar problems, there are people who live in hospitals and in many cases a city block will have 50 people and only 3 houses. That creates a bizarre dwelling density number. It can be avoided with census families but just looking at people divided by homes and you get the impression that there is 17 people in each house.

[salvius]

5950022.2 will probably be split into 5950022.5 and 5950022.6 for the 2011 census. Why tract 5950020.0 exists is beyond me, it's just a lake and a hospital, with maybe 10 houses thrown in on one side. It doesn't represent any actual neighbourhood. Downtown Fort William is split between three census tracts, my tract includes a neighbourhood over a kilometre away. In many cases they really don't make much sense. Tracts 5950100 and 5950101 include multiple municipalities in them and are pretty much useless, another bad example. The population numbers aren't even that fixed, 5950006.0 say it's population almost double but it's still less than 1,000.

City blocks have similar problems, there are people who live in hospitals and in many cases a city block will have 50 people and only 3 houses. That creates a bizarre dwelling density number. It can be avoided with census families but just looking at people divided by homes and you get the impression that there is 17 people in each house.

There are definite peculiarities, including census tracts that aren't neighbourhoods at all (industrial areas, or even parks).

[Architype]

Nice map Vid, you're right, the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem is infinite, and now I know what it is called.

[jeremy_haak]

Yeah, that's a problem, but depending on their contiguity, this may help explain the anomaly. If they all live close to each other, it does sound like it's time for SC to sever the census tract. CTs, of course, have their own peculiarities, but the point is that we're generally talking about relatively fixed population numbers.

I believe census tracts are usually formed in consultation with the municipal and provincial governments. There is also the issue that CMAs only expand by CSD rather than census tract, which is determined entirely by the province and can deviate significantly from east to west.

[vid]

Exactly. In BC, municipalities are small. In Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta, they're huge. All of Calgary's urban area is under one government. Vancouver's is under what, a dozen?

Thunder Bay doesn't even have census tracts that are just industrial areas, rather we have census tracts that are primarily industrial areas, but which include small residential neighbourhoods in their fringes. All of Intercity (the green area between the two cities on the map) is split between five census tracts, the least populous and largest having 1,500 people, all of whom live in Northwood (the part east of the north-south road the curves a bit, just west of the loop in the big green area, which is a park.) The area around the loop is only light green because on one side of that park, there is a cul-de-sac with about 35 people on it and an apartment block with about 60 more people, that bumps up the density of that block, even though it is largely unpopulated.

Tracts somewhat match up with neighbourhoods but to keep them in the 1,000 to 8,000 range some are split between other tracts and that makes the numbers a bit wonky.

[wild wild west]

Exactly. In BC, municipalities are small. In Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta, they're huge. All of Calgary's urban area is under one government. Vancouver's is under what, a dozen?

Well, more like 90% of our urban area is under one government...but you get the idea.

[vid]

Winnipeg is the same, it's a unicity. The parts of the city that count are under one government. This isn't so for Vancouver, and even Toronto to some extent. Montreal has many smaller municipalities but Montreal itself does have a larger share of the metro population than Vancouver.

Ottawa might be a better example, everything on the Ontario side for miles is under the same government.

[salvius]

Tracts somewhat match up with neighbourhoods but to keep them in the 1,000 to 8,000 range some are split between other tracts and that makes the numbers a bit wonky.

Although, this is sometimes a good thing. There are always DAs, depending on how precise you wish to be.

[kirjtc2]

Although, this is sometimes a good thing. There are always DAs, depending on how precise you wish to be.

DA boundaries can be wonky too, since they're drawn by computer.

For the 2001 census it was literally impossible to break Fredericton's population down into northside and southside components (the river splits the city evenly in 2) because some DAs and even blocks crossed the river. I know they try not to use rivers as boundaries, but how can you not when the river's 1 km wide?

Fredericton was divided into tracts for the 2006 census...and either by accident or design, many of them coincide exactly with city council wards. Makes a ton of sense now.

Likewise, for the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (which was formed by a massive amalgamation), it's impossible to determine exact population figures for most of the former municipalities because it's not tracted and the DAs just aren't drawn that way.

If it were up to me, every CA would be divided into tracts, and amalgamated municipalities would still have breakdowns for its former components.

[vid]

Thunder Bay's tracts don't follow city limits either, though considering the former limits go through houses and other buildings at this point that would be hard to figure out. There is actually a house in Northwood that would have been in three cities had Thunder Bay not been formed and that area developed the same way.

We also have DAs that go across rivers making it hard to figure things out (some blocks do it too), unlike Fredericton though, none of them line up with city wards. There are several city blocks that are in two wards, so you can't even figure out exactly how many people live in each ward.