Calgary 2019 Civic Census

[JoeUrban]

It'll happen eventually soon, although I am impressed with Lethbridge's growth lately. Statscan estimates city has population of 111,400 in 2024, putting it just behind Red Deer. link to statscan table

I'd assume Lethbridge's growth in the long-run will moderate relative to the super-charged growth of the big city suburbs like Airdrie, or even Calgary-Edmonton corridor growth like Red Deer. That said, for being relatively economically isolated Lethbridge hasn't struggled to grow. Lethbridge also seems disconnected to the boom-bust nature of most of the other cities in Alberta and just plugs along.

Here's a quick graphic of some of these smaller centres growth over time. Airdrie is certainly notable, but the other trend is the far slower growth of the Grande Prairie (transitioned from a high growth to slow growth place), Medicine Hat and St. Alberta as one slow-growth cluster; whereas Red Deer, Lethbridge and Airdrie are consistently in a higher growth paradigm:
View attachment 664477

I didn't do an in-depth analysis of each jurisdiction as there's lots of quirks, boundary conditions for each that help explain each trend. But interesting to watch!

Just for fun I used the 5 yr average growth for each city and used that to forecast. At current 5 year average rates Airdrie would surpass Red Deer in 2033 and Lethbridge in 2035.

I wonder if it will have a proper downtown by then...

Guess we'll see what the next decade brings.

 

[JoeUrban]

Lethbridge does seem to stand out on its own compared to these other places. And I also like its culture and downtown the most. If the University was closer to downtown it would be even better but as you say Lethbridge, almost to spite itself, is a success.

One thing I've noticed, very unscientifically, is if you want to know how interesting a downtown might be look at the place's pre WW1 population.
For example I find Lethbridge's and Medicine Hat's downtowns to be similar in size and number of shops even though Lethbridge is almost twice as big, and indeed in 1916 they were both around 9500 people. In 1916 Red Deer was around 2200, and Airdrie was 150 people. I think their downtowns reflect those formative year population sizes and ratios.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

1916

Make downtown's from 1916 again! I'm definitely "MD 1916 A"

 

[CBBarnett]

One thing I've noticed, very unscientifically, is if you want to know how interesting a downtown might be look at the place's pre WW1 population.
For example I find Lethbridge's and Medicine Hat's downtowns to be similar in size and number of shops even though Lethbridge is almost twice as big, and indeed in 1916 they were both around 9500 people. In 1916 Red Deer was around 2200, and Airdrie was 150 people. I think their downtowns reflect those formative year population sizes and ratios.

So much of the urban quality of our cities relies on how big the city was before cars consumed everything in planning and society.

So few cities have been able to dig themselves out of the design abyss that 75 years of car-centric thinking gave them. The ones that did leveraged their pockets of historic centres, main streets and other walkable areas to create a growth paradigm around them.

Only the truly exceptional/smart/lucky cities actually have replaced the car-centric model with something materially new and innovative, a modern urbanism - Vancouver being one of the better examples here.

Outside of the really lucky/smart examples, most cities that performed the best on the re-urbanization wave were often the ones that had the most extensive historical pre-car areas already. In these places it was the car-centric era that was the aberration, not the other way around. The central areas of the Toronto, New York, Montreal regions would be examples. Lots of good urbanism going on, but perhaps not as innovative - really more of a return to form.

Unfortunately for most places, the growth during the car area vastly overwhelms the older growth. The political and structural consequences of that make reform difficult, but not impossible. Calgary is a pretty good example I think - we went 100% into car-orientation and haven't replaced that thinking, but have made substantial strides to soften and relax the model in many ways. Much more work to do for sure - but green shoots are all over.

 

[trtcttc]

So much of the urban quality of our cities relies on how big the city was before cars consumed everything in planning and society.

So few cities have been able to dig themselves out of the design abyss that 75 years of car-centric thinking gave them. The ones that did leveraged their pockets of historic centres, main streets and other walkable areas to create a growth paradigm around them.

Only the truly exceptional/smart/lucky cities actually have replaced the car-centric model with something materially new and innovative, a modern urbanism - Vancouver being one of the better examples here.

Outside of the really lucky/smart examples, most cities that performed the best on the re-urbanization wave were often the ones that had the most extensive historical pre-car areas already. In these places it was the car-centric era that was the aberration, not the other way around. The central areas of the Toronto, New York, Montreal regions would be examples. Lots of good urbanism going on, but perhaps not as innovative - really more of a return to form.

Unfortunately for most places, the growth during the car area vastly overwhelms the older growth. The political and structural consequences of that make reform difficult, but not impossible. Calgary is a pretty good example I think - we went 100% into car-orientation and haven't replaced that thinking, but have made substantial strides to soften and relax the model in many ways. Much more work to do for sure - but green shoots are all over.

For our population size, we're actually lucky that our downtown is so large, due to the influx of head offices. Without that, Calgary would look much more like Edmonton and Ottawa than it does now. Our downtown areas (like the West End, East Village, Central Memorial Park) are able to be redeveloped into walkable communities because they were old offices, empty lots and not single family homes. It's very hard to rebuild our suburbs, and we're densifying our inner city neighborhoods (Bridgeland, Hillhurst, etc.) by building small condos and duplex/rowhouses. But that's probably about as good as we'll do, since it's not possible to redevelop into a Tokyo/London when people are living in homes already.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

It's very hard to rebuild our suburbs, and we're densifying our inner city neighborhoods (Bridgeland, Hillhurst, etc.) by building small condos and duplex/rowhouses.

I think this can still spread out. It is hard to imagine now but at one point places that are now under redevelopment (Altadore, South Calgary, etc.) were suburbs. What's happening there will happen in the suburbs, granted in decades and centuries, not years. Single-family homes in today's suburbs will either be owned by the elite or developed into multi-family. It is what economics dictates.

Those restrictive covenant people aren't wrong, they're just dead wrong, because they'll be dead by the time it matters, so it isn't their choice to make.

 

[JoeUrban]

In case anyone is curious, the top 10 largest AB cities and towns in 1916 were:
Calgary 60,000
Edmonton 54,000
Lethbridge 12,000
Medicine Hat 10,000
Red Deer 3,000
Wetaskiwin 2,000
Fort Macleod 2,000
Redcliff 2,000
Camrose 1800
Stettler 1800

Note: If combined as they are today, Crowsnest Pass (Coleman 1600, Blairemore 1000, Frank 800) would be #5 at 3400 people.

 

[CBBarnett]

For our population size, we're actually lucky that our downtown is so large, due to the influx of head offices. Without that, Calgary would look much more like Edmonton and Ottawa than it does now. Our downtown areas (like the West End, East Village, Central Memorial Park) are able to be redeveloped into walkable communities because they were old offices, empty lots and not single family homes. It's very hard to rebuild our suburbs, and we're densifying our inner city neighborhoods (Bridgeland, Hillhurst, etc.) by building small condos and duplex/rowhouses. But that's probably about as good as we'll do, since it's not possible to redevelop into a Tokyo/London when people are living in homes already.

I think you're forgetting a step - downtown Calgary was mostly single family homes first.

It's actually a great example against your last point - its very possible to redevelop cities into something vastly different than they first were developed, assuming growth remains positive over a long enough timescale. Sometime change takes years or decades (or centuries) but it can happen.

Here's Calgary in 1924 - the majority of what is now Downtown and the Beltline are single family homes:

What makes something walkable is less about the buildings directly IMO, it's more about sufficient density, sufficient mix of uses, and sufficient public infrastructure to allow walkable transportation to be a realistic way of getting around and a realistic way for the local economy to operate.

Calgary's downtown became far less walkable during the peak of the car-centric era, due to the collapse of all three measures - we built low density mostly everywhere; we separated uses out by making homes, shops and businesses so far apart then are mostly unwalkable distances apart; we made downtown full of giant one-ways roads and parking lots. Huge negative across the board.

That said - it could have been far worse. Many cities demolished much of their cores for freeways for example, making large downtown one-ways seem far less disruptive in comparison. We are recovering in many areas quickly due to good planning and lots of growth - particularly in densifying and diversifying the inner city communities - but much work to do.

Because you brought them up I found a wild fact - Tokyo was around Calgary's size today in early 1700s, London was our size in the in the early 1800s (both at our nearly at the largest city in the world at the time). The vast majority of buildings from that era in both cities are long gone, replaced several times over. Ability to regenerate is a key factor on a healthy city - we shouldn't expect any of the areas of the city to be locked into it's current configuration permanently. Change is inevitable (even if it's super slow).

 

[Albertasaurus]

While many of our suburban areas are abysmally car centric and hostile to pedestrians, Calgary is extremely lucky in that out of cities in North America that only became "big cities" in the automobile era (think much of the US sunbelt), we've probably got the most successful downtown area, all things considered. A large downtown population, among the highest percentages of the workforce in the downtown area, and a heavily used transit system all point to a downtown core that, all things considered, is quite healthy - and actually very impressive for a 2 million-ish metro that only hit the 100,000 mark in 1946.

 

[trtcttc]

I think you're forgetting a step - downtown Calgary was mostly single family homes first.

It's actually a great example against your last point - its very possible to redevelop cities into something vastly different than they first were developed, assuming growth remains positive over a long enough timescale. Sometime change takes years or decades (or centuries) but it can happen.

Here's Calgary in 1924 - the majority of what is now Downtown and the Beltline are single family homes:

View attachment 664972
What makes something walkable is less about the buildings directly IMO, it's more about sufficient density, sufficient mix of uses, and sufficient public infrastructure to allow walkable transportation to be a realistic way of getting around and a realistic way for the local economy to operate.

Calgary's downtown became far less walkable during the peak of the car-centric era, due to the collapse of all three measures - we built low density mostly everywhere; we separated uses out by making homes, shops and businesses so far apart then are mostly unwalkable distances apart; we made downtown full of giant one-ways roads and parking lots. Huge negative across the board.

That said - it could have been far worse. Many cities demolished much of their cores for freeways for example, making large downtown one-ways seem far less disruptive in comparison. We are recovering in many areas quickly due to good planning and lots of growth - particularly in densifying and diversifying the inner city communities - but much work to do.

Because you brought them up I found a wild fact - Tokyo was around Calgary's size today in early 1700s, London was our size in the in the early 1800s (both at our nearly at the largest city in the world at the time). The vast majority of buildings from that era in both cities are long gone, replaced several times over. Ability to regenerate is a key factor on a healthy city - we shouldn't expect any of the areas of the city to be locked into it's current configuration permanently. Change is inevitable (even if it's super slow).

I think looking at pure population figures are missing the broader population trends. Canada's population 100 years ago is about 9 million, we're now at 41. If we grew at the same rate, in 2125 we're supposed to be at 187 million. That's 1.45 million per year. Even during the Covid recovery years, we barely made that figure, and many are temporary and are being rolled back. I don't have the figures, but I assume in the 1700s and 1800s, those cities occupied a tiny portion of land with the same population compared to Calgary today. The changed existing uses but also expanded significantly.

Without a significant and prolonged population pressure, there's not going to be the need and capital to remake neighborhoods. We'll get mor main street for a community with more walkable businesses, but something drastic like remaking our city into one of those megacities seem pretty improbable.

 

[kora]

While many of our suburban areas are abysmally car centric and hostile to pedestrians, Calgary is extremely lucky in that out of cities in North America that only became "big cities" in the automobile era (think much of the US sunbelt), we've probably got the most successful downtown area, all things considered. A large downtown population, among the highest percentages of the workforce in the downtown area, and a heavily used transit system all point to a downtown core that, all things considered, is quite healthy - and actually very impressive for a 2 million-ish metro that only hit the 100,000 mark in 1946.

It really feels more like Dallas or Houston or Minneapolis or Denver or Atlanta in terms of downtown vibrancy

 

[CBBarnett]

I think looking at pure population figures are missing the broader population trends. Canada's population 100 years ago is about 9 million, we're now at 41. If we grew at the same rate, in 2125 we're supposed to be at 187 million. That's 1.45 million per year. Even during the Covid recovery years, we barely made that figure, and many are temporary and are being rolled back. I don't have the figures, but I assume in the 1700s and 1800s, those cities occupied a tiny portion of land with the same population compared to Calgary today. The changed existing uses but also expanded significantly.

Without a significant and prolonged population pressure, there's not going to be the need and capital to remake neighborhoods. We'll get mor main street for a community with more walkable businesses, but something drastic like remaking our city into one of those megacities seem pretty improbable.

You hit on a few trends here - overall population growth appears to be slowing globally, however cities still attract outsized share of this growth. I think it's fair to say the pace of change in cities may be slowing in a general sense, but it's probably not accurate to say it's stopped or won't still feel like significant change is occurring over the long run (e.g. 100 years).

Globally, this decreasing overall growth rate combined with robust urban growth rates appear likely to continue for quite sometime, particularly true in Canada given the centralization and agglomeration pressures our cities are able to maintain in the economy. To your point, however, if the overall tide of growth continues to decrease not every city or place within a city will be able to maintain higher growth rates forever. Many areas may switch to lower growth or stagnation paradigm. We have yet to see a larger city hit the wall to this degree, but smaller formerly manufacturing cities in Quebec and Ontario, as well as non-resource extraction prairie towns are examples of places were low/zero growth trends have entrenched themselves.

What Calgary's growth looks like is a bit of guesswork (and it's impossible to predict the sudden mega-events like a war or economic catastrophe that could totally throw any projection off). Of what we do know, the tailwinds of growth remain robust in Calgary, with the caveat that the recent rapid pace which was a short-term outlier. In terms of "plateau population" - defined as a population level in which it remains relatively consistent for a long period of time - my guess would be we would see Calgary reaching a growth plateau, probably between 2.5M to 3.5M people, sometime in the next 50 to 100 years. It's a reasonable guess but hardly predictable.

Regarding, neighbourhoods and investment however, that's way trickier to predict. Even in cities with no growth, neighbourhoods need regular capital investment in private and public infrastructure to maintain what's there. In the long run, this sometimes means full replacement of the building or infrastructure system. If a low/no growth paradigm sets in, the replacement doesn't invest in greater capacity (which is what we have been used to), rather it's just a replacement. In extreme scenarios it can result in consolidation of services and a net reduction on capacity.

But even in such as scenario, replacement doesn't mean a place not changing - new areas or new housing styles may become popular, changing cost structures may force different investment outcomes. In a low growth environment, we could still see substantial changes in built form and intensity of development over time. The result is Calgary 100 years from now will be radically different, even if it's population doesn't actually increase all that much. Economics, climate and personal choices will all interplay here.

 

[Surrealplaces]

It really feels more like Dallas or Houston or Minneapolis or Denver or Atlanta in terms of downtown vibrancy

A fair comparison, though I would say Calgary's downtown feels more vibrant than Dallas or Houston

 

[trtcttc]

You hit on a few trends here - overall population growth appears to be slowing globally, however cities still attract outsized share of this growth. I think it's fair to say the pace of change in cities may be slowing in a general sense, but it's probably not accurate to say it's stopped or won't still feel like significant change is occurring over the long run (e.g. 100 years).

Globally, this decreasing overall growth rate combined with robust urban growth rates appear likely to continue for quite sometime, particularly true in Canada given the centralization and agglomeration pressures our cities are able to maintain in the economy. To your point, however, if the overall tide of growth continues to decrease not every city or place within a city will be able to maintain higher growth rates forever. Many areas may switch to lower growth or stagnation paradigm. We have yet to see a larger city hit the wall to this degree, but smaller formerly manufacturing cities in Quebec and Ontario, as well as non-resource extraction prairie towns are examples of places were low/zero growth trends have entrenched themselves.

What Calgary's growth looks like is a bit of guesswork (and it's impossible to predict the sudden mega-events like a war or economic catastrophe that could totally throw any projection off). Of what we do know, the tailwinds of growth remain robust in Calgary, with the caveat that the recent rapid pace which was a short-term outlier. In terms of "plateau population" - defined as a population level in which it remains relatively consistent for a long period of time - my guess would be we would see Calgary reaching a growth plateau, probably between 2.5M to 3.5M people, sometime in the next 50 to 100 years. It's a reasonable guess but hardly predictable.

Regarding, neighbourhoods and investment however, that's way trickier to predict. Even in cities with no growth, neighbourhoods need regular capital investment in private and public infrastructure to maintain what's there. In the long run, this sometimes means full replacement of the building or infrastructure system. If a low/no growth paradigm sets in, the replacement doesn't invest in greater capacity (which is what we have been used to), rather it's just a replacement. In extreme scenarios it can result in consolidation of services and a net reduction on capacity.

But even in such as scenario, replacement doesn't mean a place not changing - new areas or new housing styles may become popular, changing cost structures may force different investment outcomes. In a low growth environment, we could still see substantial changes in built form and intensity of development over time. The result is Calgary 100 years from now will be radically different, even if it's population doesn't actually increase all that much. Economics, climate and personal choices will all interplay here.

I think what is most likely is the inner city ring, and it's built form - main street with shops/restaurants/services, mid-rise apartments at intersections, infills throughout will gradually expand from Hillhurst to Capitol hill, from Bridgeland to Renfrew and so on. It's already happening to a certain extent. The most challenging one is once you get to the 70s-80s suburbs where the roads are no longer grids and lots have front driveway access.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I think what is most likely is the inner city ring, and it's built form - main street with shops/restaurants/services, mid-rise apartments at intersections, infills throughout will gradually expand from Hillhurst to Capitol hill, from Bridgeland to Renfrew and so on. It's already happening to a certain extent. The most challenging one is once you get to the 70s-80s suburbs where the roads are no longer grids and lots have front driveway access.

Those neighborhoods almost feel like a lost cause, and unfortunately we have a lot of that in Calgary.