Statscan numbers

[CBBarnett]

The mid-NE is one of three big 70s developed clusters, along with one in the NW along Crowchild and one in the S along Anderson as well as smaller ones in the Beddington and Riverbend areas. But the mid-NE continues to have a consistent density of toddlers throughout - even though the first map is from 2006 when these communities are 25+ years old. A consistent density is exactly what makes schools the most efficient to operate (if they are provided for at least), and a higher density of toddlers means (again if the schools are provided for) more kids who can walk to school. Part of it is population density; the mid-NE has ~3-4K people per sq km while the other areas are more like ~2-3K. But a big part of it is actually having more toddlers per capita; here's the percent of 0-4 year olds from 2021:

The Properties area also home to a lot of new immigrants which typically have larger families.

Lots of variables are correlated, but there's a few stories we can probably tease out. Income and housing affordability seems to be a big thing in the long-run trends of toddler density.

In particular, which places have maintained some relative affordability, and which have not over the past 30 years. My hypothesis, acknowledging it's not a one-fit-all scenario, but a generalization:

1. toddlers are mostly in young families, parents typically in the early or mid careers.
2. Adults in their early or mid careers usually have lower incomes than older working adults further along in their careers. Less money for downpayments or rents.
3. Areas where housing has become expensive over 30 years will see a decline in young families, and therefore a decline in toddlers.

A few locations that stand out with some possible rationale:

• Sustained, high toddler density in West Downtown/Beltline: continual high density of toddlers due to affordability and unit density. It's the cheapest and oldest cluster of apartment blocks in the city and have existed since the 1970s. It's an affordable place to start for many, likely only for a while before moving elsewhere in the city. But the continual affordability is the key - a new young family replaces the old one when they move out. Keeps toddler density high in perpetuity - essentially the area is gentrification-proof thanks to a rare cluster of significant volume of older building stock.
• 1970s, 1980s and 1990s North, West and South burbs decline, toddlers move to new communities further out - these areas are all $800K - $1M+ for housing now. Perhaps not surprisingly, these have mostly followed a patterns of having kids when they were affordable (1970s/1980s) and less and less as time goes on and the neighbourhood ages. Fewer young families can afford here, while new housing of smaller and cheaper formats is rare.
• Northeast older burbs is the exception - likely due to maintaining some level of relative affordability, especially compared to similar areas elsewhere. Housing seems to turn-over as people move, with new toddler families moving in.

 

[CBBarnett]

Vancouver feels like a much bigger city at ground level though, definitely closer to Toronto and Montreal than Calgary or Edmonton.

I have often thought about how to quantify such a qualitative thing, here's two ideas that might work to put some numbers to it. I don't have good data to calculate but shouldn't be too hard with the right datasets:

1. # and proportion of people living in census tracts with a density greater than 10,000 people / square-km : this would show that Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal have vastly more people experiencing actual high density, a reasonably good proxy for "big city feeling" with accessible data
2. # of kilometres of walkable retail streets and/or percentage of streets with walkable retail from total number of streets: harder to calculate as you'd have to work out a methodology to identify which buildings count or not as "walkable retail", but in theory would reflect the vastly more significant walkable areas of the big three compared to Calgary and the rest. Perhaps age of building might work, or population pre-1920 (before car-dominance) would also work to tease out the relative relationship here.

I think metrics similar to above would give a clearer picture to why Vancouver feels like it fits in with Montreal and Toronto, whereas a fast growing Calgary doesn't (yet). It's not just sheer population, it's how the population is distributed and degree in which car-dependence is spread throughout the region.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Lots of variables are correlated, but there's a few stories we can probably tease out. Income and housing affordability seems to be a big thing in the long-run trends of toddler density.

In particular, which places have maintained some relative affordability, and which have not over the past 30 years. My hypothesis, acknowledging it's not a one-fit-all scenario, but a generalization:

1. toddlers are mostly in young families, parents typically in the early or mid careers.
2. Adults in their early or mid careers usually have lower incomes than older working adults further along in their careers. Less money for downpayments or rents.
3. Areas where housing has become expensive over 30 years will see a decline in young families, and therefore a decline in toddlers.

A few locations that stand out with some possible rationale:

• Sustained, high toddler density in West Downtown/Beltline: continual high density of toddlers due to affordability and unit density. It's the cheapest and oldest cluster of apartment blocks in the city and have existed since the 1970s. It's an affordable place to start for many, likely only for a while before moving elsewhere in the city. But the continual affordability is the key - a new young family replaces the old one when they move out. Keeps toddler density high in perpetuity - essentially the area is gentrification-proof thanks to a rare cluster of significant volume of older building stock.
• 1970s, 1980s and 1990s North, West and South burbs decline, toddlers move to new communities further out - these areas are all $800K - $1M+ for housing now. Perhaps not surprisingly, these have mostly followed a patterns of having kids when they were affordable (1970s/1980s) and less and less as time goes on and the neighbourhood ages. Fewer young families can afford here, while new housing of smaller and cheaper formats is rare.
• Northeast older burbs is the exception - likely due to maintaining some level of relative affordability, especially compared to similar areas elsewhere. Housing seems to turn-over as people move, with new toddler families moving in.

The one counter to this is the inner-city SW. I think a couple things are going on there, high-income young families and infill of both townhomes and apartments that are slightly more affordable for middle-income young families.

 

[CBBarnett]

The one counter to this is the inner-city SW. I think a couple things are going on there, high-income young families and infill of both townhomes and apartments that are slightly more affordable for middle-income young families.

Might still fit.

My guess would be the inner SW has seen the highest uptake in redevelopment of the building new building stock to keep things affordable - the boom in low-height infills concentrates there. Townhomes, walkups, condos all were produced at a great volume. In some areas the total number of units is up 50 to 100% what they were a few decades ago. All this opened up new options for households. More units and more diversity of units in age, quality and size meant if you wanted to live in these otherwise expensive areas you could, you might just need to do a townhome instead of a SFH.

Bankview stands out in the map too for the same reason - it's always been building and has a good stock of cheap, old apartments to brand new expensive homes and everything in between. There lots of units supply at all different price and quality points. Makes sense that young families would be attracted to the area for that reason in perpetuity.

1970s, 1980s and 1990s burbs haven't seen the scale of redevelopment. In the wealthier areas of the SW and NW of this vintage you need to buy a larger, older home to access the area, often at a high price tag (due to larger house size and established area premium).

The key dimension of the housing stock is to continually renew it (1) with units of different sizes and prices points (2). Areas that have done this may have unaffordable larger homes too, but there's still an option for a younger, less well-off family to access. This differs from the older burbs where it's mostly large, SFHs that come with larger mortgages or an insignificant local rental market.

 

[trtcttc]

Vancouver feels like a much bigger city at ground level though, definitely closer to Toronto and Montreal than Calgary or Edmonton.

Part of that is when people visit a city, they stay near population centres, downtown, attractions. Whereas in their home city, they may be in a suburb or doing more day to day activities (groceries, gym, etc.). Density is definitely higher downtown (no unused parking lots), but for someone living in Dunbar, it's probably not that different to Calgary.

 

[jhappy77]

Part of that is when people visit a city, they stay near population centres, downtown, attractions. Whereas in their home city, they may be in a suburb or doing more day to day activities (groceries, gym, etc.). Density is definitely higher downtown (no unused parking lots), but for someone living in Dunbar, it's probably not that different to Calgary.

I moved from Calgary to Vancouver ~2 years ago and there is a very noticeable difference in urban feel. There are tower clusters springing up everywhere, most sidewalks are well-trafficked, a huge portion of people my age exclusively use transit or never even learned to drive. Most neighborhoods follow a grid pattern with narrower streets so the whole city kinda feels like the inner ring neighborhoods of Calgary.

 

[Mountain Man]

The difference in Vancouver is largely from the amount of people out and about at all times of day. Calgary has a similar level of vibrancy during stampede when there are a couple hundred thousand extra people in town.

 

[trtcttc]

I moved from Calgary to Vancouver ~2 years ago and there is a very noticeable difference in urban feel. There are tower clusters springing up everywhere, most sidewalks are well-trafficked, a huge portion of people my age exclusively use transit or never even learned to drive. Most neighborhoods follow a grid pattern with narrower streets so the whole city kinda feels like the inner ring neighborhoods of Calgary.

I agree Vancouver is more dense, I just think that feeling of it being closer to Toronto than Calgary is to Vancouver, isn't necessarily accurate. I grew up near the Kerrisdale neighborhood in Vancouver, and now live near Kensington, and it feels pretty similar.

 

[Albertasaurus]

I agree Vancouver is more dense, I just think that feeling of it being closer to Toronto than Calgary is to Vancouver, isn't necessarily accurate. I grew up near the Kerrisdale neighborhood in Vancouver, and now live near Kensington, and it feels pretty similar.

I'd agree with that. I also find that older cities being less car centric tend to feel more vibrant. Vancouver unquestionably feels bigger than Calgary, in part obviously because it is, bit also because it's older and denser. But conversely, Toronto and Montreal feel just as much bigger than Vancouver (IMO), not just due to population but also age (and to a lesser extent, density). Even Ottawa, once you get outside the downtown core, feels bigger than Calgary and Edmonton IMO (sort of like comparing Philadelphia or Boston to Houston or Dallas).

On a bit of a side note, I recently saw a planning presentation comparing urban densities of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa and in spite of being a relatively low rise city, Montreal is surprisingly dense - in fact, more dense overall than Toronto. While those transit corridors with 50+ storey buildings in Toronto (and Vancouver) are obviously very dense, those rowhouses that cover much of the original city of Montreal and early suburbs like Lachine and Verdun really jack up the city's overall density.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'd agree with that. I also find that older cities being less car centric tend to feel more vibrant. Vancouver unquestionably feels bigger than Calgary, in part obviously because it is, bit also because it's older and denser. But conversely, Toronto and Montreal feel just as much bigger than Vancouver (IMO), not just due to population but also age (and to a lesser extent, density). Even Ottawa, once you get outside the downtown core, feels bigger than Calgary and Edmonton IMO (sort of like comparing Philadelphia or Boston to Houston or Dallas).

On a bit of a side note, I recently saw a planning presentation comparing urban densities of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa and in spite of being a relatively low rise city, Montreal is surprisingly dense - in fact, more dense overall than Toronto. While those transit corridors with 50+ storey buildings in Toronto (and Vancouver) are obviously very dense, those rowhouses that cover much of the original city of Montreal and early suburbs like Lachine and Verdun really jack up the city's overall density.

Here's a post I did about this a few years ago, summarizes my attempt to rationalize population, density and the "vibe" of a city. link

In summary, it's not just being bigger - it's way more people (and a way larger proportion of people) living in those vibrant higher density areas.

I updated the table in the post above with the big three cities. Montreal and Toronto have over 20 times the people living at high density that Calgary, Vancouver has 8.5 times the people. That's a massive, structural difference. In my opinion, this is why Calgary "feels" smaller than it is, and why Vancouver feels bigger than it should.

City	# of Tracts over 10,000 people / sqkm	Population Total @ 10,000 People / Sqkm	City Population, 2021	% of City Population, 2021	Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	% of Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	How many times more people does the city have living at high density compared to Calgary?
Toronto	136​	777,983	N/A	N/A	6,202,225	12.5%​	22.8​
Montreal	197​	674,713	N/A	N/A	4,291,732	15.7%​	19.7​
Vancouver	55​	290,442	N/A	N/A	2,642,825	11.0%​	8.5​
Calgary	6​	34,185	1,306,784	2.60%​	1,481,806	2.3%​	1.0​
Ottawa	7​	31,991	1,017,449	3.10%​	1,488,307	2.1%​	0.9​
Quebec City	8​	21,219	549,459	3.90%​	839,311	2.5%​	0.6​
Hamilton	3​	12,887	569,353	2.30%​	785,184	1.6%​	0.4​
Winnipeg	2​	11,783	749,607	1.60%​	834,678	1.4%​	0.3​
Edmonton	1​	5,354	1,010,899	0.50%​	1,418,118	0.4%​	0.2​
Victoria	1​	3,749	91,867	4.10%​	397,237	0.9%​	0.1​

 

[Albertasaurus]

Here's a post I did about this a few years ago, summarizes my attempt to rationalize population, density and the "vibe" of a city. link

In summary, it's not just being bigger - it's way more people (and a way larger proportion of people) living in those vibrant higher density areas.

I updated the table in the post above with the big three cities. Montreal and Toronto have over 20 times the people living at high density that Calgary, Vancouver has 8.5 times the people. That's a massive, structural difference. In my opinion, this is why Calgary "feels" smaller than it is, and why Vancouver feels bigger than it should.

City	# of Tracts over 10,000 people / sqkm	Population Total @ 10,000 People / Sqkm	City Population, 2021	% of City Population, 2021	Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	% of Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	How many times more people does the city have living at high density compared to Calgary?
Toronto	136​	777,983	N/A	N/A	6,202,225	12.5%​	22.8​
Montreal	197​	674,713	N/A	N/A	4,291,732	15.7%​	19.7​
Vancouver	55​	290,442	N/A	N/A	2,642,825	11.0%​	8.5​
Calgary	6​	34,185	1,306,784	2.60%​	1,481,806	2.3%​	1.0​
Ottawa	7​	31,991	1,017,449	3.10%​	1,488,307	2.1%​	0.9​
Quebec City	8​	21,219	549,459	3.90%​	839,311	2.5%​	0.6​
Hamilton	3​	12,887	569,353	2.30%​	785,184	1.6%​	0.4​
Winnipeg	2​	11,783	749,607	1.60%​	834,678	1.4%​	0.3​
Edmonton	1​	5,354	1,010,899	0.50%​	1,418,118	0.4%​	0.2​
Victoria	1​	3,749	91,867	4.10%​	397,237	0.9%​	0.1​

Very informative, thank you! The 3 biggest cities really do leave us in the dust, so to speak.

I'm actually surprised that we have more people in dense neighborhoods than Ottawa, and really surprised that Hamilton didn't punch higher. Also surprising that Calgary's density vs Edmonton is almost as dramatically higher as Vancouver's is to Calgary - I would have thought the two Alberta cities would be very similar - when I visit Edmonton, it feels to me like an only marginally smaller city. .

A density of 10,000 people per sq km is on par with NYC, so the fact that we have 6 Canadian cities with a decent number of people living in such neighborhoods is impressive. Although, I hope our next census will show a much improved showing for Calgary, being that we should be at least 300,000 people bigger by then.

 

[CBBarnett]

Very informative, thank you! The 3 biggest cities really do leave us in the dust, so to speak.

I'm actually surprised that we have more people in dense neighborhoods than Ottawa, and really surprised that Hamilton didn't punch higher. Also surprising that Calgary's density vs Edmonton is almost as dramatically higher as Vancouver's is to Calgary - I would have thought the two Alberta cities would be very similar - when I visit Edmonton, it feels to me like an only marginally smaller city. .

A density of 10,000 people per sq km is on par with NYC, so the fact that we have 6 Canadian cities with a decent number of people living in such neighborhoods is impressive. Although, I hope our next census will show a much improved showing for Calgary, being that we should be at least 300,000 people bigger by then.

For the smaller cities, a lot of it is a threshold problem and how census tracts are drawn - they just don’t have a lot of areas at really high density defined by my threshold (10,000people /sqkm). It really swings the numbers if a census tract is added or not, simply because there’s only a handful over the line.

For example, Edmonton has a bunch of areas that are just below 10,000, but then the tract will include the university lands or part of the river valley or a large park, dropping the measured density down below the threshold.

Keep in mind though - this is a factor everywhere, Toronto and Montreal have dozens of Census tracts just below 10,000 too - so tweaking the threshold won’t change the order materially for the top of the list. The big cities are just so, so far ahead.

The other thing unique about the big three cities is tracts that are far above the threshold. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver do have a sizeable population living at 40 or 50,000 people / square kilometre too, I don’t think any other city has any.

I’ll check the data sometime, but wouldn’t be surprised if all 100 of the top 100 densest census tracts are in the big three.

One dimension it would be cool to measure but I don’t have the data is how long the density existed. Calgarys denser areas are dense now, finally and for the first time. That’s not the same as Montreal and Toronto where areas have been dense for a 100 years.

When thinking through how density, population and urban vibes correlate, it probably matters that a city has a large, dense population not just recently, but also over a long period of time. Urban Culture takes time to brew, sheer volume of people or a burst of density isn’t enough I think! Again Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (to a lesser extent) have the density over time metric far ahead of any others.

Put another way, Calgary still just new, we are just getting started! Can repeat this exercise in 2026 after the next census

 

[jhappy77]

Awesome work! That makes me curious which census tracts in Calgary are the strongest candidates for joining the list.

 

[trtcttc]

Here's a post I did about this a few years ago, summarizes my attempt to rationalize population, density and the "vibe" of a city. link

In summary, it's not just being bigger - it's way more people (and a way larger proportion of people) living in those vibrant higher density areas.

I updated the table in the post above with the big three cities. Montreal and Toronto have over 20 times the people living at high density that Calgary, Vancouver has 8.5 times the people. That's a massive, structural difference. In my opinion, this is why Calgary "feels" smaller than it is, and why Vancouver feels bigger than it should.

City	# of Tracts over 10,000 people / sqkm	Population Total @ 10,000 People / Sqkm	City Population, 2021	% of City Population, 2021	Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	% of Metro (CMA) Population, 2021	How many times more people does the city have living at high density compared to Calgary?
Toronto	136​	777,983	N/A	N/A	6,202,225	12.5%​	22.8​
Montreal	197​	674,713	N/A	N/A	4,291,732	15.7%​	19.7​
Vancouver	55​	290,442	N/A	N/A	2,642,825	11.0%​	8.5​
Calgary	6​	34,185	1,306,784	2.60%​	1,481,806	2.3%​	1.0​
Ottawa	7​	31,991	1,017,449	3.10%​	1,488,307	2.1%​	0.9​
Quebec City	8​	21,219	549,459	3.90%​	839,311	2.5%​	0.6​
Hamilton	3​	12,887	569,353	2.30%​	785,184	1.6%​	0.4​
Winnipeg	2​	11,783	749,607	1.60%​	834,678	1.4%​	0.3​
Edmonton	1​	5,354	1,010,899	0.50%​	1,418,118	0.4%​	0.2​
Victoria	1​	3,749	91,867	4.10%​	397,237	0.9%​	0.1​

For the Toronto figure, is it based solely on the city of Toronto? Sometimes these comparisons aren't apples to apples because what a "city" includes is different. Calgary has dowtown, suburbs all in one. Whereas Toronto, Peel/York/Durham is really part of the same region. Their density will still be higher by far, but I think it'll actually be lower than Montreal.

 

[kora]

The difference between Calgary/Ottawa and Edmonton is stark. That's why Calgary and Ottawa are often compared while Edmonton is in a different league