Zoom
Active Member
I wonder when the results are due? Usually they're out by now.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Zoom
- Start date
GoVertical
Senior Member
I was thinking the same thing...
Chowda7
Active Member
Results to be made available Sept 3
Time to place your bets!
Stephen Ave
Active Member
22K
AccUnit
Active Member
Man, they've posted Sept 3rd as the date for distribution, it's almost 9:30am and nothing yet. What gives, haha. Also, my guess is 19K but who knows.
+ 18,367
Pretty decent number all considered.
I was fairly close. Bang on for natural increase, and fairly close for migration. It doesn't break down the migration source, but I bet most is from international. I'm happy to see the results were higher than my prediction.
Last edited:
Patrick.1980
Active Member
Lower than my predication of 23K, but still impressive for a city in a prolonged economic downturn. I'm curious to see the pop change in the inner city neighborhoods.
AccUnit
Active Member
Kind of mixed bag, overall growth is decent at 18K however the innercity to new community growth is pretty lopsided, not encouraging if 50% of growth is going to come from existing communities.
gsunnyg
Senior Member
Personally I’m a little disappointed with this years census. It’s great to see we’re still growing healthy in times like this but the growth this year is kind of disappointing compared to last year. The numbers fall short even from the cities own outlook perspective in their 2019 spring edition journal. On top of that the inner city growth was the biggest downside for me, after a strong year from the Beltline it was the newer suburb communities leading the way in growth this year. In addition, our housing vacancy rate went up slightly compared to last year. I think the late last year oil crash may have spooked a lot of people. From the recent data in areas like employment and housing starts as well as a couple pipelines going ahead, I’m hoping for stronger growth next year! One things for sure, whatever city hall is doing to grow the inner city it’s not working effectively enough and I suggest they get back to the drawing.
Here are some of the inner city results. Generally good, DT neighborhoods did surprisingly well. One would think EV was the reason for the large increase, but DT commercial Core, Chinatown, Eau Claire and EV all had fairly similar increases. Looks like unit decreases had an effect on pop decreases in mission, Kensington, and Inglewood. I suspect those two areas will see increases next census, as new units will be coming online.
Beltline
+242
Bridgeland
+314
Mission/Cliff bungalow (- 80 housing units)
-33
Hillhurst/sunnyside (-5 housing units)
-38
Downtown/Chinatown/East Village/Eau Claire/West End
+1257
Inglewood/Ramsay (-58 housing units)
-45
Beltline
+242
Bridgeland
+314
Mission/Cliff bungalow (- 80 housing units)
-33
Hillhurst/sunnyside (-5 housing units)
-38
Downtown/Chinatown/East Village/Eau Claire/West End
+1257
Inglewood/Ramsay (-58 housing units)
-45
AccUnit
Active Member
I couldn't agree more in regards to things not working in the growth pattern. Surreal is right in that some innercity communities, namely downtown and east village did well however the beltline, mission, and inglewood are seriously disappointing.
I have two major takeaways from the report.
1. Mainstreets: the mainstreets project is not dense enough or fast enough. For example, 16th ave N is completed and rezoned, 17th Ave N is still only Mc2, which is not dense enough for being a block off a main corrider, close to SAIT and ACAD and the train. I love the idea of the project however it's just not enough to actually get enough urban mass.
2. New Communities: why did they approve 11 new communities? I didn't understand it when it happened and I sure as hell don't understand now. Vacancy is high, housing starts have moderated, and we are nowhere near an equilibrium on growth between existing and new communities. Redstone, Nolan hill, Cornerstone are all over 1K increase however the innercity is soft and places like university district (flat), currie barracks (+161), shawnee slopes (+303) are no match. Approving those communities was a bad idea, bottom line, and frankly if the city is worried about losing out on tax revenue for suburban growth to airdrie, cochrane, chestermere or okotoks there are other ways to level the playing field.
I tend to agree. I think density if the city wants to be serious about increasing inner city density, they need to be more aggressive. Turning down projects like Glo, doesn't help. I know it's a balancing act trying to add density while not radically changing neighborhoods, but the rate of change is slow enough right now that increasing zoning in most inner city neighborhoods shouldn't be a problem.
AccUnit
Active Member
Glo is the perfect example of what's not working. One block from the train in the heart of what should be a bustling innercity neighbourhood. Not a great project however it fit the zoning requirements and would have added 100 new residents. I used to live across the street and honestly it makes no sense there are single family homes that close to the train.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I still haven't seen any justification of approving the 11 new communities. Does anyone know what led to that decision (other than the power and influence of the development industry over a majority of council)? Every article I've read that quotes councilors is just filled with platitudes about "getting development right" without actually saying why we are still approving more sprawl.