Hmm that's interesting, I am surprised Vancouver proper is expected to grow that much, even with densification, it's a lot of people to add in a small space. Especially compared to Surrey, which is densifying existing neighbourhoods all over the place (ie. downtown and the surrounding area, but also on some arterial roads. Townhouses and condos are now way more common, compared to Surrey in the 80s and 90s, when SF would have been king. But Surrey does still have way more new SF housing than Van, and brand new neighbourhoods still being built (ie. former fields becoming nighbourhoods). Vancouver basically has River District as the only new from scratch development that wasn't replacing existing residential. Olympic Village and its environs are more or less substantially built out now (the latest Concert condo closes the loop and connects to the eastern condo cluster without giant empty spaces in between). There's definitely some parcels left for redevelopment, but until the giant redevelopment of the vacant land between Hinge Park and the Cambie Bridge, it's criminal how there's no pressure to get moving on this development, we need more large scale development now! So basically with several big marquee projects like Jericho, Oakridge, the Canada Lands holdings in Oakridge, and River District, the city thinks there is enough new builds (along with densification of existing neighbourhoods) to grow that much? I hope the projections are true, I'd love to see us at that population level, so urban and dense. But I'm just having a hard time seeing it working, and basically at the level of Surrey, which seems ludicrous. But exciting as the two cities narrow so much, seeing them both grow together is nice to see, and not that the mighty Surrey is killing Vancouver to grow, they can both grow together. In a lot of American cities, this phenomenon can be seen a lot, where traditional core cities lose population, but suburbs accelerate (so it's basically just a resdistribution, and not strong regional growth). You want your cities to all succeed, and not cut each other down.
And I don't think Vancouver includes UBC in their population numbers? I know UBC is part of that weird Electoral Area A, so bizarre, it basically gets counted and is organizationally joined to the wilderness of the North Shore and Barnston Island, like totally absurd nowadays. It should be incorporated or joined to Vancouver. But as much as I love the idea of that huge population injection providing an instant boost to our population figures, I love how efficient and quick UBC is with development, they are so efficient compared to City of Van. And they can really do anything they want and not have permit concerns, meaning things go from proposal to construction and completion way quicker. So I wouldn't want their development oversight moving to City Hall, yikes, that would be a culture shock for campus development. If only their population could get added to the CoV, but then they maintain complete autonomy and still develop and manage however they want. I wish demographers starting adding not only UBC to Vancouver's population, but also think of Senakw. That's a massive amount of people in the heart of Vancouver being added, and yet it isn't going to be reflected in our population counts, it is a very weird situation, and really masks what will be significant population growth in former green field space in the heart of the city. Again, would be good if they could get counted in CoV figures, but then maintain their status as a First Nations Reserve of course, and not be subject to CoV rules. Just like UBC. But that's wishful thinking I know. Just something that I thought about, especially seeing these projections. Some of the highest growth "in the city" is on land that isn't even counted in the city. We should be normalizing adding all of these together to get a really true, realistic idea of the population in the area we call Vancouver, whether or not it is CoV technically.
Another area where this is now the case is TFN (Tsawwassen First Nation). If anyone hasn't driven around there yet, go do it, it's crazy how much development is there now and soooo much still to come, it's enormous. And like UBC, their permitting and development process is way smoother than CoV, and things get built out much quicker. Needless to say, the population of the TFN land went from a smattering of reserve residents in a few small parts of their overall territory, to a gigantic frenzy of SF homes, townhouses, apartments, all from scratch. So the % increase has been massive (from 2013 to 2023, TFN population went from 781 to 2,520 a 225% increase. And similar to Senakw, it's right in the heart of South Delta, so not some isolated remote development on a reserve out of the way. TFN is very much part of Tsawwassen itself, you wouldn't know you are suddenly on reserve land. They share same highways in and out, same services, and is an intricate part of the Delta port lands and related developments. They have some colossal warehouses out there too, so are putting in a good component of needed light industrial too, not just residential. So this total should be added to Delta, it is only realistic. Same as above, TFN would control everything and do its own development, but population would be counted together.
As a very quick ending thought, a feel like Delta deserves a special kudos right now. Their population growth turnaround has been quite shocking, and noteworthy. Based on the latest StatCan census subdivision population estimates for 2023 (
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1710015501, from 2002 to 2007 (6 years consecutively), Delta shrunk every year. Not by a ton, but still shrunk (the data set I have only goes as far back as 2001, but I think Delta was already shrinking by the late 90s). It was barely holding steady, meanwhile Surrey next door was booming. Delta, for those who don't know, is comprised of North Delta, Ladner, and Tsawassen, which are essentially town centres but have no status of their own, quite unique amongst Metro Van cities. Anyways, starting in 2010 growth turned positive, and never once shrank again. And most of those years had health growth of over 1% a year or more, and just the last two years has seen growth of 2.1% in 2022 to 3.9% in 2023. Never thought I'd see figures that high from stodgy old Delta, one of the hotbeds of older people with nothing better to do and strong opinions, especially Ladner... Yet here we are, they somehow started pulling out high growth numbers despite not having any super huge developments or brand new neighbourhoods everywhere like Surrey. Again, these figures don't take in the massive TFN developments, even though for all intents and purposes, that population growth is part of Delta in practical terms, even though not legally. The combined population of Delta + TFN appears to have bottomed out at 100,057 in 2007, but remained around that number for years and years, and flirted ever so closely to under 100,000 but then turned around. It's like some universal force kicked in and changed course before sinking, and combined population of 122,579. Quite the growth rate, up 23% since its 2007 low after years of declines and stagnation. And with such a tight land area to develop (the ALR + Burns Bog takes up so freaking much, the actual allowable developable area is pretty small). It's isolated developable areas separated by expansive farmland, but if you shoved all the built up parts together, it's quite built out. So most growth in Delta (not counting TFN) was from densification and not developing new land.
It is unreal to think how much more land would open up if they amended the ALR, it's bananas. I 100% support preserving Burns Bog, it is a geographic gem, and should be protected as a vulnerable ecosystem. But there's so many parts of the ALR in Delta where there's no farming operations, or at least none that provide much livelihood or serve a rational purpose to be there. Especially the areas bordering industrial land in Tilbury, Boundary Bay, and TFN. There's lots of under-utilized agri land out there, it's just wasted land right in the city, so ridiculous. Same with Richmond, there's like one single dairy farmer left I think. So probably supplies like 0.1% of our dairy needs, yet takes up an area the size of a big subdivision. Ludicrous! Allow more exemptions in areas where it makes sense, like in Richmond, Delta, and Big Bend in Burnaby (no need for that awkward ALR patch near Southridge, Byrne, and Marine Dr., the area is prime for more development, it's not like farming is viable here anyways). The further out you go into the Valley, the more careful the province can be with protecting real viable agricultural land like food processors, large dairy farms, vegetable operations, etc. But the inner urban cities, it should be culled big time, the valuable land being tied up with minimal farm activity is a travesty.
e developments are very well done so far,
Prev
I was down by Vanier Park just on Sunday (first time downtownish area in honestly a few years since I live out in the Fraser Valley) and I was floored at the growth around Kits, Main near Science World, Broadway, etc. Like I said above, even driving down 1st Ave was pretty wow just in a few years. 
Then again, clearly there are some people on this planet that can afford $2 million townhouses I guess so what do I know.
Linear Mode
