Calgary Civic Census 2012 - Page 3

Surrealplaces · #41 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I think he was talking over the last 7 years, which saw the completion of a lot of towers.

Yup, he was replying to my post which was in turn replying to Fusili's about the Beltline getting 3,000 people over 7 years.

It may not seem like much at first glance, but like I said, an addition of 3,000 people is a lot in a neighborhood whose boundaries aren't changing. If the Beltline keeps this pace of growth it will be dramatically different in 20 years.

MichaelS · #42 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:16 PM**

How many units got built over those 7 years? I am trying to count the towers, and have the following:

Chocolate, Colours, Union Square, Arriva, Sasso, Vetro, Nuera, Keynote 1, Xenex, Montana, Stella, Nova, Vantage Pointe,... Anything else?

fusili · #43 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

How many units got built over those 7 years? I am trying to count the towers, and have the following:

Chocolate, Colours, Union Square, Arriva, Sasso, Vetro, Nuera, Keynote 1, Xenex, Montana, Stella, Nova, Vantage Pointe,... Anything else?

Castello, Emerald Stone.

MichaelS · #44 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:26 PM**

How old is Emerald Stone? I thought it was finished pre-2005?

suburbia · #45 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

How many units got built over those 7 years? I am trying to count the towers, and have the following:

Chocolate, Colours, Union Square, Arriva, Sasso, Vetro, Nuera, Keynote 1, Xenex, Montana, Stella, Nova, Vantage Pointe,... Anything else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Castello, Emerald Stone.

That's fifteen projects right there. Even if there aren't more, that is a pretty low person to unit ratio if only 3,000 people were added. Some of those projects are rather large!

Surrealplaces · #46 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelS

How old is Emerald Stone? I thought it was finished pre-2005?

I think so too. I recall it being finished in 2004

Surrealplaces · #47 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's fifteen projects right there. Even if there aren't more, that is a pretty low person to unit ratio if only 3,000 people were added. Some of those projects are rather large!

Actually way higher ratio than the burbs if you look at it from an area perspective. Yes, that's a fair number of projects, but if you put them all together beside each other they take up a fraction of the land used for a new suburban development.

The ratio doesn't matter anyhow, it's the fact that 3,000 people were added within existing boundaries of an already developed neighborhood that makes it a big deal.

Bassic Lab · #48 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's fifteen projects right there. Even if there aren't more, that is a pretty low person to unit ratio if only 3,000 people were added. Some of those projects are rather large!

Some of those projects also destroyed existing building stock.

fusili · #49 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

That's fifteen projects right there. Even if there aren't more, that is a pretty low person to unit ratio if only 3,000 people were added. Some of those projects are rather large!

Oh no! Low person to unit ratio! The world is ending!

Elbownian · #50 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:51 PM**

Doesn't seem that bad to me. 15 projects at about 150 units per project yields 2250 units. 3000 people equates to 1.33 per unit, but you also have to factor in that some properties were demolished to make room for the new buildings (a loss of units), which means the real numbers are probably more in the 1.5 persons per property range. Pretty reasonable, all things considered.

fusili · #51 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 10:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Some of those projects also destroyed existing building stock.

Some did, but many (Sasso, Vetro, Keynote, etc) replaced surface parking lots. Others replaced derelict commercial spaces. Others replaced low-mid density residential. Drake for example, is replacing two low rise residential apartments that had terrible street presence, absolutely no relation to the sidewalk, small windows and a shared entrance. This is replaced by townhouse units at grade plus hundreds of more units above.

Spring2008 · #52 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 11:08 PM**

Stats Canada had the Beltline pop at 16,355 in 2006, so there's been almost 3,500 increase in population over the past 6 years. Also, there's been a pretty big amount of new office space, retail, renovations, and soon enough hotels to go along with the new condos.

http://shargarmanagement.com/industr...y/Beltline.pdf

I believe in the early 2000's the Beltline population was just over 14K, so there has been some pretty good growth since then. It looks like this decade is going to be a lot bigger in terms of urban growth/densification. Even right now, every inner city neighborhood has multiple projects on the go. I was pretty impressed on my trip this past weekend. Pixel is going to look really good coming into Kensington from downtown!

Bassic Lab · #53 Posted: **Jul 16, 2012, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Some did, but many (Sasso, Vetro, Keynote, etc) replaced surface parking lots. Others replaced derelict commercial spaces. Others replaced low-mid density residential. Drake for example, is replacing two low rise residential apartments that had terrible street presence, absolutely no relation to the sidewalk, small windows and a shared entrance. This is replaced by townhouse units at grade plus hundreds of more units above.

I wasn't mourning the loss of previous existing units; I was merely pointing out that dividing the population growth by the number of projects misses part of the equation and is not a reliable way of figuring out the number of people living in the newly built housing stock.

fusili · #54 Posted: **Jul 17, 2012, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I wasn't mourning the loss of previous existing units; I was merely pointing out that dividing the population growth by the number of projects misses part of the equation and is not a reliable way of figuring out the number of people living in the newly built housing stock.

Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you, actually agreeing, but just adding to the conversation. IIRC, only a handful of new Beltline condos replaced housing units.

Spring2008 · #55 Posted: **Sep 29, 2012, 12:33 AM**

Alberta grew by 27,051 and 31,196 people over the past two quarters. This quarters growth is much higher than the same period last year. It'll be interesting to see if the city of Calgary can break the 2006 growth rate of ~36k, and maybe even top 50k for metro growth this year.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...2ndquarter.pdf

Spring2008 · #56 Posted: **Sep 29, 2012, 12:38 AM**

I find this interesting too. Over the past 15 years(1996-2010), the Calgary region has grown by an average rate of 2.8% annually vs. a provincial average of 2.1%. The Edmonton region came in below the provincial average at 1.8%. Red Deer was 2nd at 2.4%.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...ic-regions.pdf

UofC.engineer · #57 Posted: **Sep 29, 2012, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spring2008

I find this interesting too. Over the past 15 years(1996-2010), the Calgary region has grown by an average rate of 2.8% annually vs. a provincial average of 2.1%. The Edmonton region came in below the provincial average at 1.8%. Red Deer was 2nd at 2.4%.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...ic-regions.pdf

Wow, a TFR of 1.94. That's very impressive. We must have the highest TFR of any province. Although I'm sure Nunavut has a massive TFR.

Rusty van Reddick · #58 Posted: **Sep 29, 2012, 4:30 PM**

Nope. Both SK and MB have higher rates. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...lth85b-eng.htm

1.94 isn't all that "impressive." Replacement rate is 2.06.

Surrealplaces · #59 Posted: **Oct 1, 2012, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Alberta grew by 27,051 and 31,196 people over the past two quarters. This quarters growth is much higher than the same period last year. It'll be interesting to see if the city of Calgary can break the 2006 growth rate of ~36k, and maybe even top 50k for metro growth this year.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...2ndquarter.pdf

I don't have any stats, but know people who work for the banks, and they have some surprisingly accurate predication on population growth (they track account movements, new accounts, etc..), and I've heard that Calgary will see similar growth in 2012 as in 2011, actually a bit higher....somewhere around 31-33k

UofC.engineer · #60 Posted: **Oct 2, 2012, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Nope. Both SK and MB have higher rates. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...lth85b-eng.htm

1.94 isn't all that "impressive." Replacement rate is 2.06.

Thanks for posting that table, it's interesting to see the variance between different provinces.

Is it safe to assume that the baby boom in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are attributed to large aboriginal populations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborigi..._2006_Census-0

I also wonder why the TFR for BC is so dismal. The stats Canada table lists Alberta's TFR as 1.83 for 2010 yet the Alberta report lists it as 1.94, a little bit of a discrepancy if you ask me.

Althought 1.94 is bellow the replacement rate I thought it was impressive(IMHO) since most developed nations are far below the replacement rate with Israel and the U.S. being the exception. If Alberta was a country we would have a TFR higher than Vietnam, Iran and Algeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...fertility_rate