A better comparison of density for Canadian cities

[salvius]

Don't take this the wrong way flar, but since I currently work as an urban demographer, I can tell you that this isn't really the best or most relevant way to compare densities and density gradients in CMAs. I'd share a comparison study, but it's not published yet.

[graupner]

Originally Posted by salvius

Don't take this the wrong way flar, but since I currently work as an urban demographer, I can tell you that this isn't really the best or most relevant way to compare densities and density gradients in CMAs. I'd share a comparison study, but it's not published yet.

Maybe it isn't the best way, but as a purely amateur work done with available datas, We can consider this to be top-notch work.
I haven't seen you posting density graphics or circular density maps (which are probably a better way to show the density).

Very nice, flar!

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

I call bullshit on that article. Community design doesn't create fat kids. Laziness on the kid's behalf, poor diet, and lax parenting creates fat kids. I have lived in suburbia all my life and it is true that most destinations require a car and you don't burn calories walking place to place. But formal play is very doable. My little brother and I have always participated organized sports, in the suburbs. In the suburbs, you can also drive to the grocery store and buy healthy food. The most fattening aspect of community design is the lack of neighborhood parks in most new subdivisions. Developers don't want to pay for them and neither do cash-strapped municipalities. Back to the point, this article is using suburbia as a scapegoat to the obesity epidemic, which can easily be controlled by the driven individual.

The whole point is that the average person (not the "driven individual" who works out and runs in the park) in the city walks more than the average suburbanite. Not formal play, but walking as a part of your daily life - to the store, the bus stop, to work, etc. Walking is widely recognized as a good way to get healthier, so it only makes sense that if you take two neighbourhoods, both where "formal play is very doable" but one where the design encourages walking and the other doesn't, the one that encourages walking will probably have a healthier population.

BTW, in Ontario developers are required to contribute 5% of their land towards parks, or 5% of their land value to pay for parks. So in this province at least, there's no difference in the number of parks in most suburban communities. What changes from place to place is community design. Cities usually have less parkland than suburbs. So if your theory is right the most fattening aspect of community design is lack of parks, why is obesity more of a problem in the suburbs? And more to the point of the topic in general, if suburban design doesn't discourage walking and contribute to obesity, why is obesity more of a problem in the suburbs?

[salvius]

Originally Posted by graupner

Maybe it isn't the best way, but as a purely amateur work done with available datas, We can consider this to be top-notch work.
I haven't seen you posting density graphics or circular density maps (which are probably a better way to show the density).

Indeed, the point is taken. I would have no problem with providing some of this stuff, but:

a) the data isn't published
b) I'm not sure I wish to 'out' myself to the forum

[flar]

Salvius: I'm not a demographer and I'm not going to do the amount of work required to use whatever methods they use in the professional literature. I just thought of this at lunch today. It would be nice though, if you know these methods, to tell us some of the ways that demographers do measure density.

[flar]

Anyway, I revised the density profiles from earlier. This time I eliminated all tracts with less than 400 people/km2 since this similar to Statscan's threshold for urban/rural. The ticks on the X axis this time are deciles of the total urban population. No real difference from the earlier results.

[habsfan]

Good Work Flar. This kind of stuff is interesting!
I know I appreciate it!

[IntotheWest]

Originally Posted by josh white

I don't necessarily actually agree with the findings of this study. I don't actually believe a better designed suburb would result in fitter kids. I think design is minute factor in the activity of people.

The difference in health that might result from location to me would be a really suburban context versus a truly urban context. In really dense urban places where it is actually far less convenient and feasible to go about your day to day errands and activities in your community by car, one is practically forced to walk everywhere. Whereas the opposite would be true in a sparce suburban area. It is too time consuming and inconvenient to walk to do day-to-day things (excluding recreation and actual excercise).

I remember in the documentary supersize me, the guy living in Manhattan, had an impossible time walking the the few number of steps per day of the average american. It was just that is location in an ultra dense neighbourhood dictated that he walk everywhere, whereas the majority who live in suburbs are essentially forced into the automobile to go about their daily life.

That is not a critique, it is just a simple reality.

Fair enough...and I do know first hand exactly what your refering to. I used to walk to work from the 14th, across downtown (15-20 minutes one way). However, even in Vancouver, where I lived downtown, I'd still make time to just go for a walk - I didn't need groceries, or Starbucks every day - so, I made a point of a good size walk (from Canada Place, to Denman, to Robson, and back...at the very least). I did the same in downtown Calgary, and even in reasonably dense North York. Just walk for exercise.

The fact this study apparently looked at my neighbourhood as an example, I can tell you first hand, that many people walk - just to walk. If you had to go somewhere, we're right beside the C-Train, shops, etc. In fact, my mother-in-law comes over Friday mornings to watch my son, and takes him to the YMCA - a 15 minute walk away.

I won't even try to argue that it could, and should be better designed...I spent enough time in downtown Calgary, Vancouver, and Toronto - as well as Kerrisdale (an upscale neighbourhood in Van) to know better. But it's not completely inconvenient.

Anyway - I guess I think there are far bigger issues with peoples health, namely "fast" food (or just poor choices), and too much video games/TV. Living in a dense area or near-rural setting isn't enough - especially for your kids. Get them off their butts, away from the games, and throw them into some sports.


I guess I'll I'm saying is I wish the health organization would stop throwing out red herrings and just tell it like it is - eat right, and get (at least) 30 minutes of continuous exercise. These reports are as bad as the media claiming the new Nintendo Wii is a good workout (as one gym in Vancouver was reported to use).

Okay - enough of my rant

[AuxTown]

To me, what these graphs have done is prove (with numbers) the order of urban density that we all had expected. We all knew that Calgary and Edmonton were the least dense cities in Canada (even though the Albertans refuse to believe admit it). I knew Ottawa was sprawly and it found itself in the right spot on the list. There is too much urban sprawl in Canada but I think every city on the list is making great strides in the areas of urban infill and densification. We'll have to look back in another 20 years to see what direction things are really heading today.

[Boris2k7]

I think the graphs are more indicative of the structure of each city, and what is currently going on in their outskirts. Although these numbers are for census tracts and aren't direct correlations, using logic one can assume that, for example, suburbs have continued to become less dense. Cities that have traditionally been associated with density are sprawling horribly at their fringes, while there remains a rather stark difference between their cores and surrounding census tracts.

One can also see that suburbs in the big 3 are getting less dense faster than smaller cities, though they are currently still at a higher density. If this trend continues, the newest census tracts in the big three will be more sprawly than the newest census tracts in Calgary, Edmonton, or Winnipeg.

DISCLAIMER: This is highly speculative. Such data is difficult to determine. We would need to see some data sets from multiple years to get an idea of change. If the left side of a curve bulged a bit more, and the tails continued to drop, that would be indicative to me that the densest census tracts are getting denser, while others are getting less dense. Of course, you would also need to have knowledge of whether census tracts have been added or removed, and where these census tracts are located. Very difficult. And the demographics people are probably going to pick me apart for this.

[Kevin_foster]

I know Edmonton is at the bottom of the density barrel - but keep in mind the amount of parkland and greenspace we keep. Uhh... that is if that's counted

And, If I recall... we have one of the densest residential communities in North America (Oliver).

[IntotheWest]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

We all knew that Calgary and Edmonton were the least dense cities in Canada (even though the Albertans refuse to believe admit it).

Re-read all my posts above to be enlightened about your conclusions. Only someone in Ottawa (re: the "we" not in Calgary or Edmonton) would make such claims.

The rest of your post rings true. But again, all the medium sized cities are quite similar in their densities.

[raisethehammer]

dang...great stuff flar.
Interesting that Hamilton is 3rd most dense in the country, barely behind Montreal.
LRT here we come!!

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

dang...great stuff flar.
Interesting that Hamilton is 3rd most dense in the country, barely behind Montreal.
LRT here we come!!

badger ur city counclers then with that data

[Markus41]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

badger ur city counclers then with that data

What are you talking about?

[niwell]

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

Fair enough...and I do know first hand exactly what your refering to. I used to walk to work from the 14th, across downtown (15-20 minutes one way). However, even in Vancouver, where I lived downtown, I'd still make time to just go for a walk - I didn't need groceries, or Starbucks every day - so, I made a point of a good size walk (from Canada Place, to Denman, to Robson, and back...at the very least). I did the same in downtown Calgary, and even in reasonably dense North York. Just walk for exercise.

The fact this study apparently looked at my neighbourhood as an example, I can tell you first hand, that many people walk - just to walk. If you had to go somewhere, we're right beside the C-Train, shops, etc. In fact, my mother-in-law comes over Friday mornings to watch my son, and takes him to the YMCA - a 15 minute walk away.

Yep, a lot of people walk for the sake of walking. Both sets of parents (child of divorce!) in Calgary do the same thing. I don't know if this is the same thing as walking for necessity though. For instance, when I'm back in Calgary for Xmas or the like we go on walks for pleasure, at a meandering pace. Now, I walk like hell to get to Lansdowne subway station because 7 minutes is better than 10! This means I have more time at home in the morning!

Though it's not scientific at all, I'd reckon those walking to specifically get places expend more energy than those doing it recreationally. I do agree with the rest of your post though.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

One can also see that suburbs in the big 3 are getting less dense faster than smaller cities, though they are currently still at a higher density. If this trend continues, the newest census tracts in the big three will be more sprawly than the newest census tracts in Calgary, Edmonton, or Winnipeg.

I wouldn't be sure that's true at all, with the possible exception of Montreal. I do know that planning in the Lower Mainland specifies high densities, though I am not sure of the specifics.

What I know for sure is that in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (aka: GTA) new communities are getting denser and denser, in part due to the Places to Grow Act/Plan and the Greenbelt Act in addition to raising land values. This is not to say that new communities are not sickeningly sprawly, but they are dense, and in most municipalities on a grid pattern to boot. I'd say this is similar to the direction Calgary is heading, though with slightly higher densities, a bit more leapfrog, and a lot more modified grid. Less decent transit than the new communities in Calgary next to LRT, though some have direct access to GO or VIVA, local bus service is probably about the same.

[Metro-One]

Am I reading these graphs wrong, People keep saying Hamilton is #3, to me the order seems to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec and then Hamilton. also do these areas take into account parkland, agricultural land reserves and green belts? Because if they do then Vancouver's is very miss leading (as i am sure other cities would be too), we have many large parks running throughout the metro area, along with two huge university campuses that have (in SFU's case) up too an entire mountain of undeveloped forest for research. We also have huge stretches of preserved farmland that are in them middle of the metro area, in fact if you go to Richmond there is a very interesting part where one side of the street is farmland and the other is a wall of condo towers and offices. So if included this can really throw off the density averages.

[flar]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Am I reading these graphs wrong, People keep saying Hamilton is #3, to me the order seems to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Quebec and then Hamilton.

For the density of the total urban area Hamilton is third. The order of the graph's is different because I ordered the graphs by highest density for the densest 10% of census tracts. The graphs show density profiles, you should look at the shape and how quickly the graph falls off.

also do these areas take into account parkland, agricultural land reserves and green belts? Because if they do then Vancouver's is very miss leading (as i am sure other cities would be too), we have many large parks running throughout the metro area, along with two huge university campuses that have (in SFU's case) up too an entire mountain of undeveloped forest for research. We also have huge stretches of preserved farmland that are in them middle of the metro area,

These are residential densities. If the uninhabited area is large enough to meet Statistics Canada's definition of rural then it would be excluded. But I see no reason why these areas would be excluded. If there is agricultural land or a greenbelt or an airport, that makes that city less dense.

in fact if you go to Richmond there is a very interesting part where one side of the street is farmland and the other is a wall of condo towers and offices. So if included this can really throw off the density averages.

As it rightfully should, it's farmland. There are situations like this in Mississauga too.

[Metro-One]

but then having this farmland reserved in urban areas and large parks is not really urban sprawl, in fact the idea of the farmland reserves is to slow down the construction of detached houses by reducing the amount of land that is available for development. These reserves also keep food supplies close to city centers to also cut down on pollution caused by long haul shipping.

[flar]

Of course it's not urban sprawl, but having open spaces makes an area less dense, by definition.