[Chinook Arch]

I was also surprised that Vancouver's overall densities are sort of midway between those of Calgary and those of the 2 biggest cities. This seems to make some sense as Vancouver is actually a bit closer in size to Calgary than it is to Montreal (4.2 M, 2.7M, 1.6M if I recall correctly).

Welcome to the forum @Albertasaurus.

I find Vancouver’s density is interesting. Outside of the downtown core and West Broadway area around False Creek, the density in Vancouver is very much piles of single-family homes with nodes of high-rises scattered in different areas, whereas Montreal‘s density tends to be low to mid density, but spread out more evenly.
To be honest, I prefer Montreal‘s style of density, but that’s just me.

 

[CBBarnett]

Very interesting. Thanks for that! And yes I pretty much totally agree with you. To be fair though, if stampede park were a total census tract itself, there would be 7 census tracts in Calgary with over 10,000+/km2, as the SE Beltline is lumped in with over half of Stampede Park. Unfortunately Inglewood is lumped in with the rail yards as well. It wouldn’t be red, but likely pink. There are a few more examples of this. But yeah it’s really cool to see!

This goes to my original point as well. I’ll be really excited to see how much this map changes by the 2026 census.

Yep - a lot matters on how your slice the data and geographies. Every city has weird quirks where this type of analysis over/under counts what meets the arbitrary density threshold I set.

Welcome to the forum @Albertasaurus.

I find Vancouver’s density is interesting. Outside of the downtown core and West Broadway area around False Creek, the density in Vancouver is very much piles of single-family homes with nodes of high-rises scattered in different areas, whereas Montreal‘s density tends to be low to mid density, but spread out more evenly.
To be honest, I prefer Montreal‘s style of density, but that’s just me.

This is a critical point - Calgary's overall density is reduced in two ways, but only one of them is development type. The other is we have an absolutely massive amount of vacant, empty or underused spaces. Loads of this is parks, but mostly it's random setbacks and just really inefficient community design.

I ran this again but simplified. This map now shows tracts under 5,000 people / sqkm, 5,000 - 10,000, 10,000+:

Now compare Vancouver:

It's that teal colour that is so widespread in Vancouver. This area is about 5,800 people / sqkm, not because it's particularly dense or filled with apartments, it's the lack of random open space, narrower roads, narrower lots that make a difference:

Put another way, as of last census - the above picture is denser than Marda Loop's tract:

Why is this the case? yes it's the arbitrary boundaries of the tracts - but it's also wider roads, random parcels undeveloped, larger lots, more school fields etc. It's not just a single tract either, it's almost all Calgary's census tracts have something - a weird escarpment, a randomly wide arterial, a ton of park space (relatively), larger lawns. It's not all bad things of course, but it's just we have loads more stuff that takes up more space that isn't housing and population that make our population more spread out than other cities, even before you get to the development component (which we are improving, but generally lag the big three too).

 

[UrbanWarrior]

You tryna make me cry?

 

[Albertasaurus]

I think a lot of density has to do with when and where cities developed as much as the overall population. If you look at it on a continental basis, large east coast and Great Lakes US cities along with Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa have pretty dense established areas characterized by compact development and narrower streets. Big west coast cities like San Fran, Vancouver and Seattle have limited space to contend with. Large cities in the Great Plains/Midwest/Rockies - thinking of Dallas, Denver, KC, Salt Lake, Phoenix and of course Calgary and Edmonton - are relatively young, saw most development in the automotive age and have no real geographic impediments to spreading out. Phoenix is about twice the (metro) size of Vancouver and 3x the size of Calgary but its overall density is waaay lower.

 

[CBBarnett]

I think a lot of density has to do with when and where cities developed as much as the overall population. If you look at it on a continental basis, large east coast and Great Lakes US cities along with Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa have pretty dense established areas characterized by compact development and narrower streets. Big west coast cities like San Fran, Vancouver and Seattle have limited space to contend with. Large cities in the Great Plains/Midwest/Rockies - thinking of Dallas, Denver, KC, Salt Lake, Phoenix and of course Calgary and Edmonton - are relatively young, saw most development in the automotive age and have no real geographic impediments to spreading out. Phoenix is about twice the (metro) size of Vancouver and 3x the size of Calgary but its overall density is waaay lower.

Yep era of development is a major factor - so is planning an infrastructure requirements and hills. Even in the car-era, not every city has been successful as Calgary at getting enormous right-of-ways dedicated to roads or sometimes just for no real reasons at all. Most of suburban Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto built from the 1970s onwards have far narrower right-of-ways on boulevards and arterials.

It's not just roads - part of the issues is utilities and pipes, the level of coordination in Calgary appears at least anecdotally much lower. The result is doubling the right-of-way to fit a gas pipeline next to a road, rather than underneath it. You don't see this nearly as often in other cities.

Calgary also did a far more consistent job in interchange "future-proofing" there's probably hundreds of hectares set aside for a interchange that will likely never happen - Bow Bottom Trail, John Laurie Boulevard, Anderson - there's many many roads that have this extra land dedicated. Compare this to a similar era Missassauga (left) and Deer Ridge (right):

Hills play another factor - Calgary is more rolling than a lot of cities so we often have kept slopes clear of development. It should be noted though that even we didn't do that all the time (e.g. Bankview), and there are far more hilly cities all over the world that didn't seem to care about developing on slopes. So it was choice made.

All this is to say - yes our era of development was a factor, but it was our choices too. Other cities had plenty of growth in eras dominated by cars and didn't end up with the amount of empty space that Calgary has. Of course, more open space can have some benefits, but it definitely counts against Calgary in any density calculation and helps ensure everything is so far apart from everything else that car-dependency becomes hard to break free from..

 

[Albertasaurus]

Good point about the interchanges and massive road rights of way. The TUC (Stoney Trail) is something like 300m wide I believe. The actual density of the residential neighbourhoods of Calgary seems to be on par with most other large North American cities, but we do waste a tremendous amount of space on rights-of-way which likely won't ever be needed. Thank goodness the Downtown Penetrator never got built!

 

[ByeByeBaby]

Density is a subtle thing, and population density is not a pure measure. Imagine I had a friend who wanted to move to Calgary but wanted to live in a new home in a low density location. I could tell them that I'd found them a place in a dissemination area with a density of 827 people per sq km, about half of the citywide average of 1592 (which includes not only road right of ways but also parks, the airport, and so on). Most new suburbs are in the 3000-4000 range, four times as dense as the new place I was able to find them! I reckon they'd be surprised when their moving truck pulled up to Telus Sky, even though everything I've said was true. Telus Sky is in a very low population density area (because the space is taken up with office towers instead).

Or to turn it around a little bit, here are three dissemination areas. Two have roughly (2016 Census) the same density, and one is a real outlier.

It seems obvious that area C is the outlier. If you look at dwelling unit density, you'd correctly reach this obvious conclusion; area A and B are both about 24 units per hectare, and area C is three times higher, 81 units per hectare.

But: we've been talking population density here. So this is wrong. Area B is the outlier; it has half the density of areas A and C -- 66 people per hectare versus 109 and 118.

Area A is in Taradale; it has 4.59 people per household. Area B is in Tuscany and has 2.91 people per household, and area C off Edmonton Trail has 1.56 people per household.

---

Going to the example of the Vancouver area and Marda Loop, the two census tracts you picked:
Marda Loop has 81.5% of the population density as the Vancouver area (I'll call it South Hill to give it a shorter name -- it's sort of between a couple of neighbourhoods).

But on a dwelling unit density basis, Marda Loop has 120% of the density of South Hill; 2674 vs 2230 units/sq km. On a bedroom basis, they are almost exactly equally dense -- 6489 bedrooms per sq km in Marda Loop, 6516 in South Hill (99.6% of Marda Loop.)

Going from this, the Marda Loop area is built out at fewer bedrooms per unit -- 2.42 vs. 2.92. It has much smaller household sizes; 1.95 people per household vs. 2.81 in South Hill. Which is what typically happens in densifying areas; 51% of the housing in Marda Loop was built since 2000 and only 27% in South Hill. Both areas have the same share of SFD housing - 23%, but Marda Loop has 47% apartments while 51% of the units in South Hill are what StatsCan calls "apartments in a duplex" which isn't what anyone I know thinks of as a duplex but is actually an up/down living situation where one unit is above the other, like a house that has been subdivided into an upper floor apartment or that has had a basement unit built.

The flip side is that the units in South Hill are more intensely occupied; 0.89 people per bedroom vs. 0.73 per bedroom in Marda Loop. There are a number of reasons; some could be cultural. The South Hill area is just north of the Punjabi Market area and has a substantial South Asian population -- the same trend that makes the far NE in Calgary the densest area by population density outside the core. Marda Loop has about 88% the population you would expect for an area in Calgary given the mix of unit sizes; South Hill has about 104% the population you would expect in Vancouver. But I don't think anyone would say that Taradale was built much better than Tuscany; it's just more intensely occupied.

Zooming out for a second, one of the reasons that Vancouver has higher population density is that they have more people per unit.

But it's worth noting that the gap between the cities is much smaller for homeowners than for renters; that suggests that part of this is that people are living in smaller units because that's all they can afford. The guy behind CensusMapper has a good blog post talking about the 'suppressed households'; households that would exist if affordable housing was available (Montreal is the comparison market) but that don't exist because housing is unaffordable. Here's how 25 to 34 year olds live in the two cities:

Density is good -- both for the planet and for quality of life -- when it means that there are shops and restaurants in walking distance, or when it means that frequent transit will be supported with high ridership. But what about when density means living as an adult with your parents or a jerk roommate because you can't afford to move out? Still good for the planet, I guess. But not for your quality of life.

 

[trtcttc]

Density is good -- both for the planet and for quality of life -- when it means that there are shops and restaurants in walking distance, or when it means that frequent transit will be supported with high ridership. But what about when density means living as an adult with your parents or a jerk roommate because you can't afford to move out? Still good for the planet, I guess. But not for your quality of life.

I don't think those two things are linked in the direction you suggested. The lack of density is what causes the young adult to be unable to move out or form a family. The problem with Toronto and Vancouver is the lack of Montreal-style density. The boom in high-rises are very visible. I lived in an area in Toronto by Yonge and Eglinton where there's probably 10+ buildings over 40 stories under construction. One building's development notice posted the square footage, rough calculation gives 610 sq ft on average, and about 10-15 units per floor. What people don't see is that one block over (past Mount Pleasant, called Leaside) are all SFHs or Duplexes on 30+ foot wide lots worth $2M - $5M. If those houses are redeveloped into townhomes, which have a smaller footprint but still very workable for a young family, housing will be a lot more affordable.

For cities like Toronto and Vancouver, affordability is probably gone forever. There is just very few ways in a democratic government where homeowners are very engaged politically to pass policies that will destroy hundreds of millions in home equity. The problem with expensive cities even without zoning constraints is that the land costs so much, that building townhomes/duplex and mid size apartments just doesn't make sense, so it's hard to build the middle density. No cities with prices this high have demonstrated the ability to return affordability. But that's also what gives me hope for Calgary. People complain about affordability but Calgary is still very affordable compared to the rest of Canada, yet we are still passing policies and not restricting development (as much as Toronto/Vancouver). Many infills in Calgary are 25 foot or less for a duplex, in Toronto/Vancouver they're mostly 30 foot plus.

 

[darwink]

No cities with prices this high have demonstrated the ability to return affordability.

Auckland. Granted, it is their national government (they're a unitary state) which is taking the lead on this.
The reforms: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil...w-housing-rules-the-big-changes-for-auckland/

Then interest rates rose. And the bottom feel out.

Where Housing Prices Have Crashed and Billions in Wealth Have Vanished

In New Zealand, high interest rates have sent property prices sliding nearly 18 percent since November 2021.

www.nytimes.com

Sorta like us, except not having the relief valve of reform kept things from retreating too much even at higher interest rates.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

To complete my analysis someone with GIS skills has to do it to count those tracts and population - I can't do that manually. And if we want to get real fancy do all this math again between 2011, 2016 and 2021 censuses to compare change in population living at 10,000 people / sqkm

I've been playing around with this for a little bit. A couple of methodological notes, first.

The first thing is -- as I posted above -- in some ways dwelling unit (DU) count is a better proxy for built form than population. (Particularly since the built form lasts longer than the population; a lot of 80s and 90s suburbs are getting less dense; that's not because buildings are getting knocked down; it's because kids are moving away.) In any case, I've prepared both, and have a "roughly equivalent" scale to show both densities per sq km:

The bins are consistent with each other, assuming the national average of 2.4 people per household. (In reality, there are more places in the densest bin for the DU based than for the population based, since densely built areas tend to have household sizes smaller than 2.4; there are more places in the 4th and 5th (yellow-green and yellow-orange) bins on the population scale.) The red bin in CBBarnett's post at 10,000 people per sq km has been split into a red-orange and a dark red bin, enabling the spotting of even denser areas.

The second one is that I think that dissemination areas (DAs for short) are a better measure in some ways than tracts, because they allow a finer look at density. Here's central Calgary population density, the thick outlines are tracts and the thin ones are DAs:

The DA basis does a better job of capturing a couple of things:
1). Fewer people are lumped in with non-residential areas. Look at the area around Franklin station, including Radisson Heights and also all the industrial between Barlow and 36th St south of 16th Ave. The tract has a density of 1433 people per sq km; the DAs south of Memorial have a combined density of 3904 people per sq km, and the one industrial one has a density of 101. (It also includes a few blocks of houses just south of Memorial -- Statscan always includes population in every area; but this effect is smaller.)
2). Tracts of dissimilar makeup are split; low-density Rosedale is combined with higher-density Sunnyside at the tract level, but at the DA level, there's a bigger distinction. The lower Edmonton Trail corridor is a clear node of density, but it's been split into three census tracts; that's not a problem with DAs.

The flip side is that some DAs can be so small they're less meaningful. The East Village has one DA that represents a single block with the older senior's housing. That block is high density, where the rest of the area is more moderate (in part, because of non-residential land uses). There are a few other cases where a single townhouse complex (eg near Rundle LRT station) is defined as high density because it's such a small area. So my preference is to use a buffered density measure:

This is the same scale as above, population density, but each DA is calculated based on all DAs within 500m (centroid-to-centroid). It helps reduce some of the variation in density due to the arbitrary boundaries. Another thing I like about it is that 500m is a walkable distance; one benefit of density is sustaining better amenities (such as retail or transit nodes); the ridership base at a transit station or the market to support restaurants isn't just the few adjacent blocks, but those within walking distance.

Here's the whole city with the four possible density definitions:

 

[ByeByeBaby]

And here's some cities to compare with us (all the same scale):
Winnipeg

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

Montreal

Toronto

 

[ByeByeBaby]

And then the final statistics:
Here's the shares by the four measures (in order: DU raw density, DU buffered density, population raw density, population buffered density)

And the final statistic of the share of population in high density conditions as well as the classic population-weighted density calculated using DAs:

CMA	Pop over 10K density	Pop over 4167 DU buffered density	Pop over 10K DU buffered density	Pop weighted density
Toronto	20.7%​	16.3%​	6.1%​	10,909
Montreal	22.8%​	22.3%​	1.3%​	6,798
Vancouver	18.4%​	18.4%​	3.9%​	7,238
Calgary	3.4%​	3.8%​	0.8%​	3,962
Ottawa	6.4%​	4.8%​	0.5%​	3,828
Edmonton	2.6%​	2.5%​	0.2%​	3,231
Quebec City	6.4%​	7.2%​	0.0%​	3,393
Winnipeg	4.4%​	4.4%​	0.0%​	3,803
Hamilton	5.7%​	5.2%​	0.3%​	4,384
Kitch-C-W	1.6%​	1.2%​	0.0%​	3,110
London	2.1%​	1.1%​	0.0%​	2,870​
Halifax	3.7%​	4.2%​	0.0%​	2,868​

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Montreal are goals. Good density without a lot of height. Sprinkle in some high rise and you've got a nice mix.

 

[Albertasaurus]

Really shows that we have a lot of work to do if we are to ever get densities anywhere near the 3 biggest metro areas. Totally agree that Montreal style density is preferable - while the giant multi towers in Toronto and Vancouver make for impressive skylines, they often suck at street level and aren't great for liveable city building.

Thanks for putting together all those stats and maps!

 

[Surrealplaces]

That's a lot of good info @ByeByeBaby. Thanks for posting.