Quote:
Originally Posted by d_jeffrey
Ottawa has the greenbelt. Which is one of the biggest factor for it's low density.
"Old suburbs" are still dense compared to other North-American cities. Le Plateau in Montréal is one of the most dense, even with the lack of skyscrapers.
Montréal sprawl started in the late 70s early 80s. Montréal Island still had free land back then, plus the fact that bridges were needed to cross helped reducing sprawl.
For the GTA:
Population (2006)
- CMA Total 5,113,149
- CMA Density 866.4/km2 (2,244/sq mi)
Greater Montréal:
Population (2009)
- Total 3,814,700
- Density 853.6/km2 (2,210.8/sq mi)
Greater Vancouver:
- Total 2,116,581 (2006)
- Density 735.6/km2 (1,905.2/sq mi)
Calgary Region:
- Total 1,230,248 (2006)
- Density 242.03/km2 (619.6/sq mi)
National Capital Region:
- Total 1,130,761 (2006)
- Density 197.82/km2 (506.4/sq mi)
Ottawa: (city proper)
- City 812,129 (2006)
- Density 292.3/km2 (757.1/sq mi)
|
The "City of Ottawa" is 2796sq km (1080sq mi), and the urban zone is 512sq km (around 200sq mi) based on the city's data
# Population: 900,000 (mid 2009)
# Households: 366,550 (mid 2009)
# Area: 2,796 kilometres (1,080 square miles); 90 kilometres east to west
# Ottawa's area is almost 80 per cent rural
You could probably estimate that 800,000 of the population within the City's limit are considered "urban", so the math would say :
Population per sq km: 1562/km2 (give of take...)
You can't include the greenbelt in the land use calculations since it is a prohibited building area, treat is like a waterway... I doubt Lake Ontario falls into Toronto's numbers, nor Vancouver's mountains either....
The CMA numbers are all screwed up, see the following figures:
http://www.chpc.biz/Census_Population.htm
Please explain how Edmonton is over 9000sq km? The CMA figures are out of whack, then the Toronto CMA should start at Bowmanville and extend to St-Catherines and to all the way north to Barrie and west to Kitchener.