News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

I would say the opposite. 18000 confirms the myth that it is an unnaturally small population for the large amount of built density. That would equate to about 10% of the downtown workforce if every single one of the 18000 worked downtown too. This shouldn't be considered a negative. It just seems very low.
 
For the amount of density or the area? It's very dense but is mostly office buildings. One should really go with area as a comparison, after all it still the same amount if people either way.

maestro said:
I would say the opposite. 18000 confirms the myth that it is an unnaturally small population for the large amount of built density. That would equate to about 10% of the downtown workforce if every single one of the 18000 worked downtown too. This shouldn't be considered a negative. It just seems very low.
Click to expand...
 
maestro said:
I would say the opposite. 18000 confirms the myth that it is an unnaturally small population for the large amount of built density. That would equate to about 10% of the downtown workforce if every single one of the 18000 worked downtown too. This shouldn't be considered a negative. It just seems very low.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not very low, considering it's 5000 larger than Edmonton in an area 0.5 km2 smaller, and 14 000 larger than Ottawa, in an area only 0.55 km2 larger. So as far as cities our size go, we're doing quite well, especially considering we have a neighbourhood with 23 000 directly adjacent.
 
I'm not going to get into a city vs city comparison. There are too many variables involved to make a balanced comparison. I'm also not interested in boosting a city's ego by slighting another either. I don't need to hear how Calgary has more towers under construction than City A and B combined to appreciate what is being built here. That's what the other forums do and I thought that was your explanation for leaving them.

I was strictly referring to the urban (extended downtown) population (60,000?) versus the 50 odd million square feet of commercial space representing a high percentage of overall inventory. In my experience, that's usually what the "myth" revolves around.
 
No, the myth, at least as it was told on SSP, was always due to the incorrect calculations provided on the Downtown Calgary wikipedia page. I have since recalculated and sourced my calculations and definitions correctly. However, that old incorrect information was online for over 10 years, so the perceptual damage is already done.

If you're correct about the extended downtown population being around 60 000, that would mean Calgary has a very large core population for a city our size. So that again is the reality of the situation further dispelling the myth. The fact that we have a downtown with 50 million square feet of office space is merely a testament to our boom/bust (with a greater edge to the boom) economic climate in which the city exists, and should have no bearing on the amount of population we have downtown. If anything, it may be a detriment to getting population downtown due to land values being way higher than they ought to be in a city our size.
 
The 60,000 is a guess. It's not a figure of interest to me and the incredible yearly gains requires one to stay attuned.

The 50 milllion square feet is attributed to Calgary being a major fossil fuels corporate centre and the desire of those companies to cluster together. The boom bust climate is a symptom of the resource based economy and that's as far as the connection goes. Most conversations I've had relate to how the office core absolutely dominates the surrounding urban communities. It is fair to say the office core compares well to a metro population far larger than the current size of Calgary and it's unfair to expect the urban residential population to represent the amount of office space.
 
Thank you :p
 
C5XroYFUEAEcn3n.jpg
 
It's what I have implied all along. I'm not holding it against the city for having a smaller downtown population for the overall scope of the downtown. It just is what it is.
 
maestro said:
It's what I have implied all along. I'm not holding it against the city for having a smaller downtown population for the overall scope of the downtown. It just is what it is.
Click to expand...
It's all relative. I don't think Urban Warrior's comment was meant to be a comparison to Toronto or Vancouver, but to Edmonton and Ottawa (which he did mention) as they are similar sized cities. The population might be small compared to the large density of buildings, but in terms of population/area it's not bad for a city of Calgary's size.
 
Always_Biking said:
It's all relative. I don't think Urban Warrior's comment was meant to be a comparison to Toronto or Vancouver, but to Edmonton and Ottawa (which he did mention) as they are similar sized cities. The population might be small compared to the large density of buildings, but in terms of population/area it's not bad for a city of Calgary's size.
Click to expand...

Of course. I'm already left my comments on the continued comparisons to Edmonton and Ottawa. Every city is different which makes direct comparisons of little use. My focus is more on the typical makeups of high density urban areas.
 
In the regard of urban area make-ups, Calgary is certainly top-heavy in office buildings. I'd like to see some residential built in the core, or if possible some of that office space converted to residential.
 
I don't see a link to any stats on this tweet, but if true, it's good news for Calgary's high rise condo market.
Image4.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Image4.jpg
    Image4.jpg
    84.6 KB · Views: 245
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top