HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 3:19 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
census 2011

well its finally come out so thought i'd post the growth of some of the cities around here for those to lazy to look up themselfs
lets go by percentage given

1.Port Moody (19.9%) [2006] 27,512 - [2011] 32,975 (growth of 5,463)
2.Surrey (18.6%) [2006] 394,976 - [2011] 468,251 (growth of 73,275)
3.Pitt Meadows (13.5%) [2006] 15,623 - [2011] 17,736 (growth of 2113)
4.New Westminster (12.7%) [2006] 58,549 - [2011] 65,976 (growth of 7,427)
5.Chilliwack (12.6%) [2006] 69,217 - [2011] 77,936 (growth of 8,719)
6.Langley town (11.2%) [2006] 93,726 - [2011] 104,177 (growth of 10,451)
7.Coquitlam (10.4%) [2006] 114,565 - [2011] 126,456 (growth of 11,891)
8.Maple ridge (10.3%) [2006] 68,949 - [2011] 76,052 (growth of 7,103)
9.Burnaby (10.1%) [2006] 202,799 - [2011] 223,218 (growth of 20,419)
10.Richmond (9.2%) [2006] 174,461 - [2011] 190,473 (growth of 16,012)
11.Abbotsford (7.4%) [2006] 124,258 - [2011] 133,497 (growth of 9,239)
12.Port Coquitlam (6.9%) [2006] 52,687 - [2011] 56,342 (growth of 3,655)
13.North Vancouver city (6.7%) [2006] 45,165 - [2011] 48,196 (growth of 3,031)
14.Langley city (6.2%) [2006] 23,606 - [2011] 25,081 (growth of 1,475)
15.Mission (5.6.%) [2006] 34,505 - [2011] 36,426 (growth of 1,921)
16.Vancouver (4.4%) [2006] 578,041 - [2011] 603,502 (growth of 25,461)
17.Delta (3.3%) [2006] 96,635 - [2011] 99,863 (growth of 3,228)
18.White Rock (3.1%) [2006] 18,755 - [2011] 19,339 (growth of 584)
19.North Vancouver dist (2.2%) [2006] 82,562 - [2011] 84,412 (growth of 1,850)
20.West Vancouver (1.3%) [2006] 42,131 - [2011] 42,694 (growth of 563)

Last edited by Whalleyboy; Feb 9, 2012 at 3:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 3:33 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
i'd like to note if you take the actual number of people growth of the three cities below surrey (Burnaby,Richmond, and Vancouver) they still did not equal up to its numbers 61,892. Only by adding the fourth city (coquitlam) below it does it just pass it at 73,783
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 4:13 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 2,816
19.9% seems like quite a bit of growth for a city with a 0% growth policy..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 4:18 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
yeah i was quite shocked to see port moody on top
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 4:24 AM
renthefinn's Avatar
renthefinn renthefinn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,646
I suspect the growth percentages will change once the numbers are corrected. Though Surrey will still be on top by a mile or so, but maybe not the 5 miles it's up by now.
__________________
'I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 10:04 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
Population Increase VS Growth Rate

The first number is the city's ranking by absolute population increase and the number in [brackets] represents its ranking by growth rate.

1. [2] Surrey (18.6%) [2006] 394,976 - [2011] 468,251 (growth of 73,275)
2. [16] Vancouver (4.4%) [2006] 578,041 - [2011] 603,502 (growth of 25,461)
3. [9] Burnaby (10.1%) [2006] 202,799 - [2011] 223,218 (growth of 20,419)
4. [10] Richmond (9.2%) [2006] 174,461 - [2011] 190,473 (growth of 16,012)
5. [7] Coquitlam (10.4%) [2006] 114,565 - [2011] 126,456 (growth of 11,891)
6. [6]Langley Town (11.2%) [2006] 93,726 - [2011] 104,177 (growth of 10,451)
7. [11] Abbotsford (7.4%) [2006] 124,258 - [2011] 133,497 (growth of 9,239)
8. [5] Chilliwack (12.6%) [2006] 69,217 - [2011] 77,936 (growth of 8,719)
9. [4] New Westminster (12.7%) [2006] 58,549 - [2011] 65,976 (growth of 7,427)
10. [8] Maple ridge (10.3%) [2006] 68,949 - [2011] 76,052 (growth of 7,103)
11. [1] Port Moody (19.9%) [2006] 27,512 - [2011] 32,975 (growth of 5,463)
12. [12] Port Coquitlam (6.9%) [2006] 52,687 - [2011] 56,342 (growth of 3,655)
13. [17] Delta (3.3%) [2006] 96,635 - [2011] 99,863 (growth of 3,228)
14. [13] North Vancouver city (6.7%) [2006] 45,165 - [2011] 48,196 (growth of 3,031)
15. [3] Pitt Meadows (13.5%) [2006] 15,623 - [2011] 17,736 (growth of 2,113)
16. [15] Mission (5.6.%) [2006] 34,505 - [2011] 36,426 (growth of 1,921)
17. [19] North Vancouver dist (2.2%) [2006] 82,562 - [2011] 84,412 (growth of 1,850)
19. [14] Langley city (6.2%) [2006] 23,606 - [2011] 25,081 (growth of 1,475)
20. [18] White Rock (3.1%) [2006] 18,755 - [2011] 19,339 (growth of 584)
21. [20] West Vancouver (1.3%) [2006] 42,131 - [2011] 42,694 (growth of 563)
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 10:26 PM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Thanks for sorting them by actual increase not percentage increase. Why most sources focus on percentage increase is beyond me. This is not the stock market so the percentage increase is really not relevant to anything. It certainly is not any indication of what future growth might be. It would not even surprise me if Surrey's growth falls dramatically as places to build new single family housing dry up. I suspect people who want to live in multi-family housing would probably chose to live elsewhere in the region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 10:37 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by racc View Post
Thanks for sorting them by actual increase not percentage increase. Why most sources focus on percentage increase is beyond me.
Geographic size of the areas involved? New West adding 7,700 people is more impressive than Langley adding 10k.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2012, 10:59 PM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Geographic size of the areas involved? New West adding 7,700 people is more impressive than Langley adding 10k.
And Surrey adding 73,275 people is more impressive than Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and Coquitlam adding 73,783 combined. Statistics are fun!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 10:11 AM
Echowinds Echowinds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Posts: 136
Considering New West is an old and built up city, adding nearly 13% in population through intensification projects is much more impressive than Langley Township's growth, which certainly includes some sprawl.

However, considering that Vancouver-Burnaby-Coquitlam-Richmond are mainly adding population in their town centres and downtown, this is also more commendable than the rather decentralized growths found in Surrey. For the population and growth of Surrey, Whalley's development is relatively disappointing. For instance, the tremendous growths in transit poor areas such as Clayton isn't exactly a good sign.

I would like to see Vancouver getting greater growth along the Cambie corridor though. There's nothing really significant happening outside of the metro core aside from sporadic developments like Marine Gateway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 4:11 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echowinds View Post
For instance, the tremendous growths in transit poor areas such as Clayton isn't exactly a good sign.
I'd disagree with Clayton being transit poor. Compact form housing with considerable higher densities than many places in Vancouver built around a major thoroughfare with frequent buses.

I'd say that it's a pretty good sign.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 5:00 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
I know the Vancouver numbers are low, why?, I could only guess and that's not to say other cities including Surrey also suffer from underreporting. I can only hope though that the city takes the low growth to heart and addresses it. If we want to be the greenest city in the world we can not continue pushing people to the suburbs where COV has no say on development. We need to open up to city outside the core to more density. Downtown is getting close to tapped and within the next decade and a half will see growth slow to minimal. The city needs to take a page from the Metro handbook and develop it's own town centres. Once we leave the core we need to move away from the tower form into something more suitable such as midrises, stacked townhouse and rowhouses. The density on most of our aterials right now isn't something to be proud of. I don't think we need to go as high as we're going to see along Cambie, but it should provide a good framework.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 5:46 PM
ozonemania ozonemania is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 678
I was also idsappointed with Vancouver's growth. I was actually a little surprised it was so low. I suspect a good chunk of that number is due to new construction in the downtown core. If you take out the downtown of Vancouver, it looks astonishingly 'suburban'. I would have thought that the laneway housing initiative might have had an impact, but perhaps it's too little, too soon, to see the impact. Densification along major urban corridors is starting to happen, this is also perhaps too soon to see any impact.

The challenge for Vancouver is that it is very much built out in the areas that matter most. Cambie, Main, Fraser, Kingsway, Hastings, Broadway, 4th, 41st, etc. will probably take some time before we can convert existing to higher density. The low hanging fruit of taking on areas like the False Creek flats, NEFC, Marine Gateway, etc to me seem far more simpler for developers to grab onto, and I don't know what the City has been doing to help with the not-so-low fruit.

Another contributing factor to the low numbers might also partly be due to just how expensive it is to live in the City fo Vancouver. The population numbers for owner-occupied households would not really change that much outside downtown, if you think about it. You do see alot of subdivided homes though, with basement suites, divided homes, laneway housing, legal/illegal secondary suites, etc. Characterisically rentals with more transient populations and also perhaps Stats Can is not as effective on getting accurate info on. Or more accurate info is forthcoming.

Anyway, I hope the City of Vancouver is looking at these numbers and asking themselves some tough questions. Particularly in lieu of of Sullivan's and Robertson's ambitions in EcoDensity and affordable housing. Vancouverites voted in these people for these policies, yet at the same time they are fiercely protective over their own neighbourhoods. It's not mere NIMBYism. It's hypocritical-NIMBYism.

The problem is that we actually do have very, very nice neighbourhoods as they are right now. Changing them in a way would be a shame, but allowing the brunt of population growth go to the surrounding cities is even more unwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 6:27 PM
golog golog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 356
Since Vancouver isn't growing outward, it's answer is to focus on growing inward -- lower the cost of living and achieve better travel times is what'll make that happen

Such as building the UBC - Broadway - Commercial grade separated rapid transit, and then once that is done one that loops around downtown, maybe partner with North Van for a rail link under the harbour all the way to a mountain, a waterfront LRT line that can be on the surface without impacting road traffic, more perimeter loops around the core such as hastings - rupert - 41st, marine dr - boundary, etc..

It's nice to see the drought of commercial office space ending, but Vancouver needs a stable long term vision. That way when something like the Canada Line is built, everyone building commercial or residential space has made their plans for the decade before and after with that knowledge. Keep the momentum rolling through good times and bad
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 6:50 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is online now
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,569
by these numbers, there are 213,880 more people in this region over the last 5 years of which 34% settled in Surrey.

that also means about 117 more people a day of which about 40 land in surrey.
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 7:05 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,380
A person moves to Surrey approximately every half hour.
A person moves to Vancouver approximately every hour and a half.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 7:07 PM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 355
I agree on how suburban Vancouver feels outside of downtown. There has been very little density added along the Expo Line since it has been opened, which is a huge shame. It sounds like Cambie will change that, but it will definitely have to put up with a fight from existing residents. Which has actually been a problem for Vancouver.

Another factor that no one really pays attention to, is the fact that the vast majority of employment is now outside of the City of Vancouver. People tend to want to live close to where they work. I think the thing that Vancouver should be fearing right now is, in fact, Surrey's rapid development.

Surrey has been given the right to be develop the "Second Downtown" of the Lower Mainland. This is only a recent development and Surrey is just getting started on building density, especially around the City Centre. With these latest census numbers, developers and businesses will definitely be taking a look at Surrey as a viable option for development and as a place to base their business. The population is young and with the generally aging employment base, this will be a vital resource to tap into. Not to mention that Surrey has something Vancouver has been without for a long time: Affordability.

This isn't to say that Vancouver is about to decline. Far from it. But it will be clear in the next decade that it will no longer be the "go to city" for everything. It will need to compete with Surrey, which is something it has never really thought to do. I think we are looking at the development of a twin city situation here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 8:19 PM
Conrad Yablonski's Avatar
Conrad Yablonski Conrad Yablonski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozonemania View Post
I was also disappointed with Vancouver's growth.
Not me-not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozonemania View Post
Cambie, Main, Fraser, Kingsway, Hastings, Broadway, 4th, 41st, etc. will probably take some time before we can convert existing to higher density.
Mid Fraser is already seeing some mid rises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozonemania View Post
Another contributing factor to the low numbers might also partly be due to just how expensive it is to live in the City fo Vancouver.
Point taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozonemania View Post
The problem is that we actually do have very, very nice neighbourhoods as they are right now. Changing them in a way would be a shame, but allowing the brunt of population growth go to the surrounding cities is even more unwise
Why?

More people equate higher prices and lower living standards except under exceptional planning and circumstances-something city govt's are not famous for.

I like living where I do and things the way they are-slow small changes are best for me and let newcomers either pay the prices here or shuffle off to the drear eastern burbs.

In summer I meet visitors every week who look @ English Bay & the Coast Mountains and declare 'I'm going to move here'!

As it is only a small percentage do and many of those soon move on-all to the good.

Again-More is Not Better you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 12:24 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
I agree on how suburban Vancouver feels outside of downtown. There has been very little density added along the Expo Line since it has been opened, which is a huge shame. It sounds like Cambie will change that, but it will definitely have to put up with a fight from existing residents. Which has actually been a problem for Vancouver.

Another factor that no one really pays attention to, is the fact that the vast majority of employment is now outside of the City of Vancouver. People tend to want to live close to where they work. I think the thing that Vancouver should be fearing right now is, in fact, Surrey's rapid development.

Surrey has been given the right to be develop the "Second Downtown" of the Lower Mainland. This is only a recent development and Surrey is just getting started on building density, especially around the City Centre. With these latest census numbers, developers and businesses will definitely be taking a look at Surrey as a viable option for development and as a place to base their business. The population is young and with the generally aging employment base, this will be a vital resource to tap into. Not to mention that Surrey has something Vancouver has been without for a long time: Affordability.

This isn't to say that Vancouver is about to decline. Far from it. But it will be clear in the next decade that it will no longer be the "go to city" for everything. It will need to compete with Surrey, which is something it has never really thought to do. I think we are looking at the development of a twin city situation here.
I have to agree I've come to notice when riding the skytrain to Vancouver from surrey. I can always tell when I've hit the Vancouver area since there isn't much going on till you get close to downtown. Mean while if you look at Surrey each station has development going around it. Minus scott road but thats area has plans for future use.

Also another thing people may want to note for where the growth is happening is the type of work both cities have to offer While Vancouver holds a lot of white collar office work. Its taken out a lot of its blue collar work like mills and warehouses. Which Surrey has been more then happy to take in. But as Surrey matures its been building up it white collar office work area too now. But blue collar is where a lot of people coming over here start.

I do have to agree with you on the twin city thing. Which personally I like the idea of. Instead of fighting each other the two cities should work together to help each other out. Which currently isn't happening. I rarely hear things where Surrey and Vancouver work together. heck i rarely hear anything about both mayors talking to each other let alone agree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2012, 3:58 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
I have to agree I've come to notice when riding the skytrain to Vancouver from surrey. I can always tell when I've hit the Vancouver area since there isn't much going on till you get close to downtown. Mean while if you look at Surrey each station has development going around it. Minus scott road but thats area has plans for future use.

Also another thing people may want to note for where the growth is happening is the type of work both cities have to offer While Vancouver holds a lot of white collar office work. Its taken out a lot of its blue collar work like mills and warehouses. Which Surrey has been more then happy to take in. But as Surrey matures its been building up it white collar office work area too now. But blue collar is where a lot of people coming over here start.

I do have to agree with you on the twin city thing. Which personally I like the idea of. Instead of fighting each other the two cities should work together to help each other out. Which currently isn't happening. I rarely hear things where Surrey and Vancouver work together. heck i rarely hear anything about both mayors talking to each other let alone agree.
I'd be willing to guess that you have never seen much development around stations like nanaimo and 29th ave. Simply because it is a lot harder for a developer to buy up land then people think. For on reason what if a few people don't want to sell. If a developer wanted to buy my property even for cold hard cash. Why should I sell?

I mean sure the government could just come in and kick everyone out.

So I do realize that Vancouver hasn't developed much around those stations. But I think it's a lot harder to densify an existing single family home area than most realize. Rebuilding a commercial or industrial area is easy because you have less land owners to deal with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.