News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

UrbanWarrior said:
That's what I find as well, and I am on both of those streets during weeknights 7 days a week walking my dog. There are always dozens of people within view, and in the case of 17th, maybe hundreds. Kensington is also like this at virtually all times outside of late night/early morning. Calgary, especially for our size, does not have a problem with vibrancy.

If people are going to make comparisons, compare us to comparable cities. Edmonton and Ottawa have populations nearly identical to us, and we stack up extremely well against them. The fact that we are comparing ourselves to places like Van and Mtl I guess is evidence of the fact that we've left those other two in the dust and aren't even on our radar anymore.
Click to expand...
See I think we've had a similar discussion on this before too. Yes, we're better than Edmonton and Ottawa but again why compare to something lesser? When you're trying to achieve excellence you don't compare with people below you, you look towards where you can get to. Sounds like consolation IMO when we compare ourselves to cities that have a bad rep for vibrancy. When I point out the lack of vibrancy in our city, my goal is to not put Calgary down in any way but to raise constructive criticism, something we can work on and improve.

Once this pandemic is over and I come across a lifeless 17th ave or Kensington on a normal day, I'll be more than happy to take a picture as evidence if anyone wishes 😅 , but it's happened to me one too many times, especially driving around showing my cousins the City. Again, constructive criticism on my end, we can do much much better! And I'm happy to see a positive step in the right direction with areas like Bridgeland and this is what makes me more excited about the Entertainment District.
 
gsunnyg said:
city propers
Click to expand...
I wonder what the relative population densities are in the various phases of annexation these days.
1611014917913.png
 
I’m guessing anything annexed within 1911 would probably be over 2000 people/sq.km^2 but then again cities like Mississauga, Burnaby are over 2000 p/sq.km^2. I believe there was a Fraser study on this a while ago too where they excluded for non urban land within city limits to measure up density. Doesn’t help in Calgary’s case when many older neighbourhoods are hollowing out and the population is increasing on the outskirts. Which gets me even more furious at City hall who had set out a 50/50 growth goal over a decade ago. So far it’s been 90/10. 90% of growth is happening in newer communities
 
gsunnyg said:
I’m guessing anything annexed within 1911 would probably be over 2000 people/sq.km^2 but then again cities like Mississauga, Burnaby are over 2000 p/sq.km^2. I believe there was a Fraser study on this a while ago too where they excluded for non urban land within city limits to measure up density. Doesn’t help in Calgary’s case when many older neighbourhoods are hollowing out and the population is increasing on the outskirts. Which gets me even more furious at City hall who had set out a 50/50 growth goal over a decade ago. So far it’s been 90/10. 90% of growth is happening in newer communities
Click to expand...
Couldn't find the more up to date statscan tool, and this is limited due to 2016 data, and the use of federal electoral districts as the measures, but here it is nonetheless.
1611017131666.png

Forest Lawn is 2,109 per square km, but for some reason the web app won't display it in the table.
 

Attachments

  • 1611016693104.png
    1611016693104.png
    472.4 KB · Views: 140
darwink said:
Couldn't find the more up to date statscan tool, and this is limited due to 2016 data, and the use of federal electoral districts as the measures, but here it is nonetheless.
View attachment 294995
Forest Lawn is 2,109 per square km, but for some reason the web app won't display it in the table.
Click to expand...
The crazy part is, Taradale's density is the 7th highest in the city ( I would recheck this but it's right up there behind the Beltline). There are lots of secondary suites and multi-generational homes of immigrants. It really shows in the summer evenings with tons of people out but that's what's a little sad about our City. One of the most vibrant places in our City is a suburb on the edge of town.
 
gsunnyg said:
I’m guessing anything annexed within 1911 would probably be over 2000 people/sq.km^2 but then again cities like Mississauga, Burnaby are over 2000 p/sq.km^2. I believe there was a Fraser study on this a while ago too where they excluded for non urban land within city limits to measure up density. Doesn’t help in Calgary’s case when many older neighbourhoods are hollowing out and the population is increasing on the outskirts. Which gets me even more furious at City hall who had set out a 50/50 growth goal over a decade ago. So far it’s been 90/10. 90% of growth is happening in newer communities
Click to expand...

It actually does help significantly in Calgary's case. We're one of only a few cities in the country whose urban area is smaller than our municipal borders, the only other sizeable city is Ottawa, though theirs does span into Quebec. Because of this, measuring density by municipal landmass/population is faulty. It needs to be urban area only, as it's the only one close to meaning anything. Within the city border, our density is only 1658/km2, but because we have 240 km2 of undeveloped land inside the city (obviously not including public park land), our urban density is 2,324/km2.

City of Calgary - 1,362,000 / 826 km2 = 1658 per km2
Calgary Urban Area - 1,362,000 / 586 km2 = 2,324 per km2
 
Last edited:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sit...paring-urban-density-in-canada-and-abroad.pdf
UrbanWarrior said:
It actually does help significantly in Calgary's case. We're one of only a few cities in the country whose urban area is smaller than our municipal borders, the only other sizeable city is Ottawa, though theirs does span into Quebec. Because of this, measuring density by municipal landmass/population is faulty. It needs to be urban area only, as it's the only one close to meaning anything. Within the city border, our density is only 1658/km2, but because we have 240 km2 of undeveloped land inside the city (obviously not including public park land), our urban density is 2,324/km2.

City of Calgary - 1,362,000 / 826 km2 = 1658 per km2
Calgary Urban Area - 1,362,000 / 586 km2 = 2,324 per km2
Click to expand...
where did you get 1.362 mil in city limits? I think Fraser did it well with the 2016 numbers. 2112/km^2.
-Mississauga 2468 km^2
-Toronto 4457/km^2
-Montreal 4916/km^2
-Hong Kong 25719/km^2

I think anywhere between 3500-4500/ Km^2 is ideal as long as road infrastructure and transit are kept up. The good thing with Calgary is that our core is in the center so it's not prone to the same traffic problems Toronto and Vancouver experience (traffic moving away and into the core from one or two directions)
 
Last edited:
That's why I didn't mention those city's numbers, since I don't really care. They weren't close to us before, and won't be now (Edmonton and Ottawa), and the others are much farther ahead that we'll never catch them. And ok, with those communities included, it might be 230 km2 of empty land rather than 240. Regardless, it's not going to be a big difference.
 
I think Montreal and Toronto are bad comparisons simply because of their history, age and population. It is not much different than saying look at how vibrant NYC or Chicago are compared to Calgary. Sure, but they have been vibrant cities in one form or another for many decades before Calgary was even a spot on the map. So for me, these comparisons are not constructive because they fail to place Calgary in the context of an exceptionally young city without a comparatively large population. Context matters.

Vancouver is a great example of a city that built its identity as a major cosmopolitan city with all the fixings fairly recently over the last few decades. It began around the time when their population was about the same as Calgary is now. If we can go in that direction based on solid policy and planning as opposed to the direction other young cities like Dallas or Denver went (outwards), then I think over the coming decades we will flesh out a reputation as a vibrant, cosmopolitan city. As of right now, I wouldn't panic too much if 17th ave didn't feel like Yonge Street or Granville or St. Catherines last time you drove down it.
gsunnyg said:
See I think we've had a similar discussion on this before too. Yes, we're better than Edmonton and Ottawa but again why compare to something lesser? When you're trying to achieve excellence you don't compare with people below you, you look towards where you can get to. Sounds like consolation IMO when we compare ourselves to cities that have a bad rep for vibrancy. When I point out the lack of vibrancy in our city, my goal is to not put Calgary down in any way but to raise constructive criticism, something we can work on and improve.
Click to expand...
 
I think Calgary could use some improvement on it's downtown/inner city vibrancy, but I also think we are heading in the right direction and have made great strides. Great strides considering the history of the city and it's core, and how the 70's/80's office building boom pretty much ruined downtown. Luckily, the other parts of Calgary's core such as the inner city neighborhoods that surround the CBD, and the river pathways, cycle tracks and parks that connect those neighborhoods have made incredible progress over the past 10-20 years.

The one problem is the CBD, which sits in the middle. It's not a problem that can fixed easily, but it can be fixed. If you look at the inner city neighborhoods: Kensington, Inglewood, Bridgeland, Beltline and Mission, collectively they offer a lot of vibrancy. Calgary does as good or better than any other cities its size, and those neighborhoods are still improving steadily.

At some point if these office buildings stay empty long enough, changes are bound to happen. Another change that is likely to happen is we'll see more residential built right in the core, now that office development is no longer desirable.
 
Surrealplaces said:
I think Calgary could use some improvement on it's downtown/inner city vibrancy, but I also think we are heading in the right direction and have made great strides. Great strides considering the history of the city and it's core, and how the 70's/80's office building boom pretty much ruined downtown. Luckily, the other parts of Calgary's core such as the inner city neighborhoods that surround the CBD, and the river pathways, cycle tracks and parks that connect those neighborhoods have made incredible progress over the past 10-20 years.

The one problem is the CBD, which sits in the middle. It's not a problem that can fixed easily, but it can be fixed. If you look at the inner city neighborhoods: Kensington, Inglewood, Bridgeland, Beltline and Mission, collectively they offer a lot of vibrancy. Calgary does as good or better than any other cities its size, and those neighborhoods are still improving steadily.

At some point if these office buildings stay empty long enough, changes are bound to happen. Another change that is likely to happen is we'll see more residential built right in the core, now that office development is no longer desirable.
Click to expand...
Colour me interested in an apartment in the Bow. Lol.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top