Tarsus
Active Member
I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of Mission added to the downtown boundaries.
Maybe not the next census, but I would also expect to see some of lower mount royal added as well.
|
|
|
Calgary's Downtown Population
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Maybe not the next census, but I would also expect to see some of lower mount royal added as well.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I strongly doubt it. Statscan methodologies define a downtown as the densest area of employment, plus a 1 km buffer, so the thing that would make our downtown area spatially larger would not be population growth, but more employment near the core (but at densities similar to the very high ones there).
Further, under the Statscan methodology, our downtown would include Lower Mount Royal (at least as far west as 11 St), the north end of Mission/Cliff Bungalow (probably to 21st Ave), the south part of Crescent Heights (probably south of 7th Ave), most if not all of Sunnyside and Hillhurst south of Gladstone Rd and east of 14th St. Roughly 12-15K people.
But the final step in their methodology after producing the downtown area is "check with the municipality and follow their suggestions", and our Statscan downtown matches with the City's definition of the Centre City, so my strong assumption is that Statscan received the feedback that the City would prefer the areas to align. Since we're not changing that policy definition any time soon, the downtown won't change any time soon either.
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
That's actually some very impressive numbers. Unless Ottawa beats us, which I dont think they do, what is the next-smallest North American metro with more people living in its downtown? Probably Vancouver?
InfrastructureEnthusiast
Active Member
Impressive numbers indeed, that 10 year growth is staggering. I suspect adding another 30k isn't going to take 10 years, maybe see 100k in the early 2030s. By that point empty lots in the core should be pretty rare, that sense of completeness and the amount of locals is going to create a big psychological tipping point. Big city feel solidified.
Just build it
Active Member
Thanks for that explanation. I don’t agree with Stat can methodology, but your explanation makes sense as to why areas like the stampede grounds are part of downtown but not Mission. I mean, I look at Thunder Bay, it has a downtown area, not that much smaller than ours but with an employment base of 4,000 people compared to our 137,000.
I also don’t agree with Statscan’s last step of consulting with the city. I think it should be formula based and leave it at that.
IMO, the downtown should be more of a mix of employment and residential density, but I don’t work at Statscan so I guess it is what it is.
Back in the day, the 'downtown' area for cities was more about jobs than residents. It was the place people took the bus to go to work and the place people did their shopping. These days it's much more of a mix, and defining what is a downtown is a bit trickier.
darwink
Senior Member
Throwing maps in for folks’ easy reference.
Reading the article it isn’t hard to guess that in some cities boundaries were shrunk on consultation (Vancouver, Calgary) and in others not so (Edmonton, Ottawa).
Vancouver’s and Montreal’s boundaries should have the most shift by 2050 to reflect how new transit has stretched their downtowns to include additional institutions and their growing clusters as part of the centre city.
Reading the article it isn’t hard to guess that in some cities boundaries were shrunk on consultation (Vancouver, Calgary) and in others not so (Edmonton, Ottawa).
Vancouver’s and Montreal’s boundaries should have the most shift by 2050 to reflect how new transit has stretched their downtowns to include additional institutions and their growing clusters as part of the centre city.
Which article?