Largest Downtowns in Canada

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, including Gastown, Chinatown, Victory Square, Oppenheimer - Former Japantown are the original downtown.


http://www.oldvancouver.com/story-so...town-eastside/

https://dnchome.wordpress.com/about/

That neighbourhood map seems awfully generous and would mean I live in the DTES.

As far as I'm concerned, the DTES starts at the Viaduct heading north to the harbour.

Rest is difficult to define but I'd barely classify Gastown or Strathcona as being DTES.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Isn't that the point of what he said?

Originally Posted by esquire

In Vancouver, you can clearly see the benefit of having a small downtown

Calgary has a small downtown.

Originally Posted by esquire

instead of the typical Canadian highly-dense downtown surrounded by suburbia

The transition from a dense downtown to suburbia has nothing to do with the "small" downtown and more to do with heavily inflated land values near downtown Vancouver due to the limited land supply caused in part by geographical boundaries that help to push the development of high density residential near the core.

If there is some sort of a benefit of having a small downtown, as the poster implied, then Calgary would share that benefit because our downtown is in fact very small.

Saying "it is good to have a small downtown, unlike Calgary who has blah blah" is instantly wrong, because Calgary does in fact have a small downtown.

Unless by "small" the poster meant "low density with shorter buildings", but seriously, do you think that is what he meant?

Also, truth be told, Calgary has suburbia on one side of it's CBD and that side is separated from the CBD by the Bow River. The whole south side is high density urban residential through to and including Lower Mount Royal, the east side is where East Village is being developed and will be high density urban and even Inglewood is seeing more and more MFH developments occurring now. Ramsey is SFH's but it is also on a huge freaking hill and that curbs a lot of high density residential due to geographical barriers from the core that make it a less attractive area for MFH and density increasing redevelopments. The west side has many high rise dense residential properties that border the CBD and lower Sunalta has largely MFH developments.

Calgary has it's SFH areas pretty close to the CBD, but Vancouver has it's Strathcona and Kits Point SFH areas not too far away from their dense downtown as well. You can cherry pick these types of areas in just about any city. Calgary also has areas of very high density residential extending from it's core in many directions if you actually want to find that too.

Regardless, a small and dense core IS a good thing, and it helps to stimulate high density residential in and around the core, and that is exactly what is occurring in Calgary right now. The number of huge multi-family developments in Calgary under construction and proposed in Calgary is actually quite unreal atm and if it continues at this pace for the next 50 years Calgary is going to have a huge urban population living near to the CBD. Are all the SFH's being demolished tomorrow? No. Will the number of SFH's near the core decrease as time progresses? Definitely. Are the SFHs in Mount Royal days numbered? Not a chance.

[ozonemania]

I always thought Calgary's downtown was fairly large for the population, especially given the fact that the CBD is the employment centre for the whole city. I could be wrong though, it just seemed larger to me area-wise. It has like what 6-7 C-Train stations? That's more than Vancouver's 3 stations (if you're generous you could count maybe 5?)

[Metro-One]

I would say downtown Van has 6 stations, Yaletown is definitely part of downtown. If someone in Richmond is going to Yaletown station, you will say, "I am going downtown." Same is true for Stadium.

Also keep in mind the C-Train is surface LRT in downtown Calgary while skytrain is subway metro, which usually has further station spacing.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

That neighbourhood map seems awfully generous and would mean I live in the DTES.

As far as I'm concerned, the DTES starts at the Viaduct heading north to the harbour.

Rest is difficult to define but I'd barely classify Gastown or Strathcona as being DTES.

It's City Hall's classification... but take it as you will.
http://vancouver.ca/home-property-de...area-plan.aspx

Looking into it further, there is actually an updated map

https://vancouverpublicspace.wordpress.com/

Also, this is the best map to show Downtown and the Downtown Eastside:

https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2014...he-olden-days/
Full city original map here: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Zoning-Map-Vancouver.pdf

It can dispel some illusions as to the size of the overall downtown area from a zoning/use perspective.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Calgary has a small downtown.

I disagree. Calgary's downtown is very close to the size of downtown Vancouver despite the fact that Calgary is less than half the size of Van.

Calgary would be a totally different city in terms of the density of the inner suburbs if it had a downtown proportionate to Vancouver's. This is a snapshot of Calgary's reality:

[OTSkyline]

^ I don't think the above really shows or proves that Calgary's downtown is large but rather Vancouver's downtown is small(er). Everyone knows that if there is something that Vancouver does right, it's density. So they have a farily small and dense downtown (compared to other cities around 2.5 million people like Pittsburg, Denver, Orlando, etc...)

[red-paladin]

In Winnipeg's defence.. 100 years ago it was believed that the city was going to be the size of Chicago one day. They were really planning on a massive population. The legislature is even giant as it was hoped it would be a very populous province.

[Spocket]

Actually, there's little need to "defend" Winnipeg's downtown spread. The reason is because, well, there'd been next to no real development in the northern part of downtown (the Exchange District) for nearly 80 years. The modern downtown district is considerably less expansive. What people are looking at is really just a political division rather than a real, on the ground, definition of downtown Winnipeg.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

^ I don't think the above really shows or proves that Calgary's downtown is large but rather Vancouver's downtown is small(er). Everyone knows that if there is something that Vancouver does right, it's density. So they have a farily small and dense downtown (compared to other cities around 2.5 million people like Pittsburg, Denver, Orlando, etc...)

Well, yes, that's the point... Calgary (and to varying extents all prairie cities) have fairly large downtowns relative to their populations. That's why in those places, downtown tends to stop rather abruptly. I know it's changing in Calgary in some surrounding areas like Kensington, the Beltline, etc., but there is a much clearer contrast there between the proper urban downtown CBD and suburbia. Whereas in Vancouver, it is a much more gradual transition... the urbanity of downtown literally spills over into surrounding areas.

Originally Posted by red-paladin

In Winnipeg's defence.. 100 years ago it was believed that the city was going to be the size of Chicago one day. They were really planning on a massive population. The legislature is even giant as it was hoped it would be a very populous province.

I don't know that it was driven by local boosterism so much as it was the desire of property speculators (including HBC) to make money. Although I suppose they were abetted by boosterist local politicians who figured that hundreds of thousands of people would flood in to fill all of the downtown areas... that obviously never happened. Downtown Winnipeg probably would have been a much better place had it remained centred on Main Street.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Actually, there's little need to "defend" Winnipeg's downtown spread. The reason is because, well, there'd been next to no real development in the northern part of downtown (the Exchange District) for nearly 80 years. The modern downtown district is considerably less expansive. What people are looking at is really just a political division rather than a real, on the ground, definition of downtown Winnipeg.

The northern parts of downtown are still very much downtown Winnipeg, historically and in the modern sense even if it is relatively forlorn and forgotten and almost frozen in time.

With the Exchange District becoming a stronger draw for residential and commercial activity and the waterfront along the Red River seeing more activity too, it's really just a small triangle of land between the Disraeli, King and Higgins that is left as a fairly stagnant place that has seen little growth or improvement since roughly WWII.

There is much more to downtown Winnipeg than just the stretch between The Bay and City Hall.

[1overcosc]

Kingston's downtown is about half a square kilometre according to the City's official boundaries which are pretty good borders (borders map: http://www.downtownkingston.ca/files/dbia-areamap.pdf). That's roughly the area contained by commercial/institutional development, outside of that area is the prewar residential areas.

Obviously not comparable to the big leagues but I'd say we're doing well for our size class. Most of the downtown is filled, too. Only about a fifth of it is surface parking... although that fifth is going to take a very long time to fill with our slow growth rates.

[Beedok]

I'd say an issue is that separating downtowns from inner city is very hard to do. Some cities are clearer (some of Ottawa's boundaries are very clear), but others are just so vague. Hamilton or Thunder Bay just sort of have a blur with gradually shifting density.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'd say an issue is that separating downtowns from inner city is very hard to do. Some cities are clearer (some of Ottawa's boundaries are very clear), but others are just so vague. Hamilton or Thunder Bay just sort of have a blur with gradually shifting density.

Kingston has a bit of a blur in the west, so the cultural/economic differences between areas are used to set Division St as the western border of downtown.

In the north and south, though, there's clear drop-down points. In the south, there's an early 19th century neighbourhood (Sydenham triangle), directly south of the core that originated as an enclave for wealthy lords, so it has detached housing for the most part, which sharply distinguishes it from the core. North of downtown there's a legacy of industrial areas (and the brownfield that results) providing a clear line too.

[logan5]

How is everybody measuring what is considered to be "downtown"? I see smaller centers being mentioned, so that would suggest a much lower threshold for what is considered downtown. For example, Central Broadway in Vancouver (located just south of the DT peninsula) has close to as many or more jobs than cities like Hamilton and Winnipeg. Vancouver maintains a fairly high level of employment density outside of the peninsula, which would put our unnofficial downtown area at approx. 5 sq miles, which is fairly sizeable and is probably in line or larger than similar sized cities.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by logan5

How is everybody measuring what is considered to be "downtown"? I see smaller centers being mentioned, so that would suggest a much lower threshold for what is considered downtown. For example, Central Broadway in Vancouver (located just south of the DT peninsula) has close to as many or more jobs than cities like Hamilton and Winnipeg. Vancouver maintains a fairly high level of employment density outside of the peninsula, which would put our unnofficial downtown area at approx. 5 sq km's, which is fairly sizeable and is probably in line or larger than similar sized cities.

Downtown: area that serves as the core of the city.

Downtown is relative. Yes, some random inner city area near downtown in Vancouver will have more stuff (jobs/density/whatever) than the downtown of say, Saskatoon, but that doesn't mean that said random inner city area is actually part of downtown Vancouver.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Kingston has a bit of a blur in the west, so the cultural/economic differences between areas are used to set Division St as the western border of downtown.

In the north and south, though, there's clear drop-down points. In the south, there's an early 19th century neighbourhood (Sydenham triangle), directly south of the core that originated as an enclave for wealthy lords, so it has detached housing for the most part, which sharply distinguishes it from the core. North of downtown there's a legacy of industrial areas (and the brownfield that results) providing a clear line too.

I've heard of "downtown" Kingston definitions where it goes all the way west to Bath Road; the first time I went down there many years ago, I assumed downtown started there heading east.

I consider Kingston's downtown to go a bit west of Division, to about Alfred Street, but that's very much debatable. University Ave would be another possible boundary.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Downtown: area that serves as the core of the city.

Downtown is relative. Yes, some random inner city area near downtown in Vancouver will have more stuff (jobs/density/whatever) than the downtown of say, Saskatoon, but that doesn't mean that said random inner city area is actually part of downtown Vancouver.

I wouldn't really consider Broadway south of False Creek to be part of downtown Vancouver even though it's fairly built up, in much the same way that I wouldn't consider Yonge and Eglinton to be downtown Toronto even though it looks downtownish with office towers and all.

I agree that it can be tougher to draw the line in larger cities where the cutoff is not very stark... by comparison, it's relatively easy to sort out where downtown ends in prairie cities.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Downtown: area that serves as the core of the city.

Downtown is relative. Yes, some random inner city area near downtown in Vancouver will have more stuff (jobs/density/whatever) than the downtown of say, Saskatoon, but that doesn't mean that said random inner city area is actually part of downtown Vancouver.

What do you mean by random? Central Broadway is as close to the CBD as Bloor Street is in downtown Toronto. Eglinton is 6.5 km's out with large swaths of low density housing in between. Unless you're saying Bloor and Yonge is not a part of DT Toronto.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by logan5

What do you mean by random? Central Broadway is as close to the CBD as Bloor Street is in downtown Toronto. Eglinton is 6.5 km's out with large swaths of low density housing in between. Unless you're saying Bloor and Yonge is not a part of DT Toronto.

Vancouver itself has a pretty clear understanding of what constitutes downtown:

Downtown is Vancouver's primary business district, houses many arts, entertainment, and sports venues, and is close to several vibrant residential communities. A peninsula, Downtown is bounded by Burrard Inlet on the north, False Creek and the popular district of Yaletown to the south. The West End neighbourhood and world-famous Stanley Park are to the west, and the popular historic districts of Gastown, Chinatown, and Strathcona are to the east.