Statistics Canada Reports II

[someone123]

I'd like to see some sort of building intensity metric or map for cities. It would just look at ground coverage and building heights; basically it is FAR down to the building or block level, coloured instead of in 3D form. You could generate something rough automatically from Google 3D data.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd like to see some sort of building intensity metric or map for cities. It would just look at ground coverage and building heights; basically it is FAR down to the building or block level, coloured instead of in 3D form. You could generate something rough automatically from Google 3D data.

I'm surprised that something like that doesn't already exist. Although as along time map collector, I have seen maps that have the outline of major buildings imposed on it but they don't show small buildings like houses. Just things like office towers, shopping malls, trains stations, airports, etc. Sometimes even schools, community centres as well depending on the scale.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd like to see some sort of building intensity metric or map for cities. It would just look at ground coverage and building heights; basically it is FAR down to the building or block level, coloured instead of in 3D form. You could generate something rough automatically from Google 3D data.

I recall Winnipeg doing something vaguely like this a while back. See slides 5, 6 and 7 at this link for the map I'm talking about, though the link is more focused on population and employment density which scales the polygon, not so much actual building size though presumably they would be correlated (more people live in taller buildings).

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

I recall Winnipeg doing something vaguely like this a while back. See slides 5, 6 and 7 at this link for the map I'm talking about, though the link is more focused on population and employment density which scales the polygon, not so much actual building size though presumably they would be correlated (more people live in taller buildings).

That is interesting although why 3d? It just makes it harder to see what is going on. They should have made a 2d map. You can see there that some areas with no population are just not very developed, but others are devoted to other uses like office towers. You see that universities and airports aren't dead zones but rather employment hubs.

There was an old block-level map of Halifax made from 2011 census data, but it's very out of date now: https://wayemason.ca/2013/03/08/halifax-density-maps-2011-census-data/

It also clearly has some errors. For example one block that is a single 400 unit apartment building is shown as having 0 population. It's actually an ultra-dense block that might have something like 50,000+ residents per square km. Looking at that census tract, the population grew by 87% during 2016-2021, to 5,203 in a 0.5 square km area.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by someone123

That is interesting although why 3d? It just makes it harder to see what is going on.

My guess is that 3D allows for the mapping of two variables whereas 2D would be limited to one variable. With 3D, the height of the polygon can convey the total amount of people/jobs on a plot of land, whereas the colour can convey the density (people/jobs per hectare/acre). If it's 2D, you'd have to choose only one of those two variables to convey.

Also, why go through the effort to make a 2D population density map when Census Mapper already exists for the entire country?

[phone]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd like to see some sort of building intensity metric or map for cities. It would just look at ground coverage and building heights; basically it is FAR down to the building or block level, coloured instead of in 3D form. You could generate something rough automatically from Google 3D data.

A lot of cities make building height information available as GIS shapefiles or the like... maybe I could try my hand at making some rough and ready map if I find some spare time.

[zoomer]

Some new calculations for 3 km radius:

Gander - 11,880
Charlottetown - 33,582
Saint John - 34,651
Fredericton - 37,185
Nanaimo - 40,337
Kamloops - 41, 435
Moncton - 46,733
St. John's - 47,952
Kelowna - 53,294
Brantford - 69,300
Regina - 76,791
Saskatoon - 92,518
Halifax - 94,335
Surrey - 125,504
KW- 126,499
Victoria - 132,799
Edmonton - 136,245
Winnipeg - 140,784
Ottawa - 145,732
Quebec - 148,107
Hamilton - 150,681
Calgary - 155,479
Montreal - 251,914
Vancouver - 272,955
Toronto - 342,125

[zoomer]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'd like to see some sort of building intensity metric or map for cities. It would just look at ground coverage and building heights; basically it is FAR down to the building or block level, coloured instead of in 3D form. You could generate something rough automatically from Google 3D data.

What insights are you looking for from this information?

As you said wouldn't Google Earth or Apple Maps in one of the 3D provide the most accurate visual information? The only thing that would improve upon this would be if you used one of these layers but then each individual building had the FAR indicated. If you were to use some type of individual colour coding you would have a crazy amount of colour info for it to be mildly accurate, say at least 14, as for example in Vancouver the FAR downtown would range from 0 to 13 or so. It would just be a visual mess, and then too generalized if you were to use 5 colour indicators.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by zoomer

What insights are you looking for from this information?

As you said wouldn't Google Earth or Apple Maps in one of the 3D provide the most accurate visual information? The only thing that would improve upon this would be if you used one of these layers but then each individual building had the FAR indicated. If you were to use some type of individual colour coding you would have a crazy amount of colour info for it to be mildly accurate, say at least 14, as for example in Vancouver the FAR downtown would range from 0 to 13 or so. It would just be a visual mess, and then too generalized if you were to use 5 colour indicators.

It would show the actual FAR, much like the maximum allowed FAR shown in planning maps. It would use a colour scale with some sort of gradient.

The advantage over looking at Google's 3D scan is that you would not get occlusion. If you want to see height in a 3D view you have to look at it obliquely, but some buildings cover others. If you look from above, it is hard to tell what the height is. Another variant would be to break it down into a grid or other partitions and include empty areas like streets in the calculation.

I think the simple population + employment map, as in that Winnipeg example, is pretty straightforward and interesting too (maybe supported by that census mapper, or maybe you could just merge the views).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by zoomer

What insights are you looking for from this information?

As you said wouldn't Google Earth or Apple Maps in one of the 3D provide the most accurate visual information? The only thing that would improve upon this would be if you used one of these layers but then each individual building had the FAR indicated. If you were to use some type of individual colour coding you would have a crazy amount of colour info for it to be mildly accurate, say at least 14, as for example in Vancouver the FAR downtown would range from 0 to 13 or so. It would just be a visual mess, and then too generalized if you were to use 5 colour indicators.

For the past 15 years, the FAR downtown would range from 0 to 25 or so, (and the Residences at the Hotel Georgia tower is over 30!)

[logan5]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Some new calculations for 3 km radius:

Gander - 11,880
Charlottetown - 33,582
Saint John - 34,651
Fredericton - 37,185
Nanaimo - 40,337
Kamloops - 41, 435
Moncton - 46,733
St. John's - 47,952
Kelowna - 53,294
Brantford - 69,300
Regina - 76,791
Saskatoon - 92,518
Halifax - 94,335
Surrey - 125,504
KW- 126,499
Victoria - 132,799
Edmonton - 136,245
Winnipeg - 140,784
Ottawa - 145,732
Quebec - 148,107
Hamilton - 150,681
Calgary - 155,479
Montreal - 251,914
Vancouver - 272,955
Toronto - 342,125

Wow. Victoria right up there with Edmonton and Winnipeg, and not all that far behind Ottawa and Calgary. Surprising to see Halifax down the list that far. I thought it was more densely populated than that. I suspected that Victoria would be ahead of Halifax, but not that far ahead.

[zoomer]

/\ Wow! I guess I remember Shangri La having a FAR of 13.5, but obviously it does not cover a good chunk of the lot.

Good points someone123 - I think it could provide a good overview for individual cities but once you begin comparison it becomes really complex which is why an actual Google Earth 3D view would be more understandable for the layman, but I don't suppose laymen are laying around looking at this are they.

I asked ChatGPT (grains of salt please) for recommendations:

To visually compare downtown built form across cities—encompassing building size, height, density, lot coverage, parking, and transportation infrastructure—the most effective approach is a multi-layered comparative visual. Here are the best visual representation types depending on your audience and goals:

🔹 1. 3D Massing Models (Axonometric or Isometric)
Best for: Urban planners, architects, the public

Why: Shows building height, density, and lot coverage at a glance.

How: Use consistent scale and viewpoint (e.g., top-down oblique) for multiple cities side by side.

Tool examples: SketchUp, Rhino + GIS data, or even open-source tools like Blender with GIS plugins.

🧠 Good example: Side-by-side isometric views of downtown Vancouver, Calgary, and San Francisco showing building volumes, green spaces, and road networks.

🔹 2. Figure-Ground Diagrams
Best for: Comparing lot coverage, street networks, and urban fabric

Why: Strips away non-essential details to show only building footprints (black) vs open space/streets (white).

How: Keep scale and framing consistent across cities.

Tool examples: Illustrator + GIS data, QGIS, or Adobe Photoshop.

🧠 Shows how tightly packed or fragmented a downtown is, and highlights surface parking lots.

🔹 3. Cross-Sectional Elevation Strips
Best for: Comparing building height, street wall, and zoning envelope effects

Why: Allows comparison of vertical form along a common corridor (e.g., 1 km slice of downtown)

How: Take a “slice” down a major avenue and show elevation views side-by-side.

🔹 4. GIS-Based Heatmaps or Layered Overlays
Best for: Showing data intensity like:

Building age

Height (color coded)

FAR

Parking coverage

Transit infrastructure density

How: Use choropleth or dot-density layers over basemaps.

Tool examples: QGIS, ArcGIS, Mapbox.

🔹 5. Interactive Dashboards or Story Maps
Best for: Public education or presentations

Why: Combine maps, data, and explanations.

Tools: ArcGIS StoryMaps, Flourish, Tableau, or Google Earth Studio.

🔹 6. Aerial Photos with Labeled Annotations
Best for: Readable to general audiences

Why: Realistic images paired with labeled features (e.g., “office tower,” “parking lot,” “train station”) to guide attention.

🧭 Ideal Approach: Combine Several

[someone123]

Originally Posted by logan5

Wow. Victoria right up there with Edmonton and Winnipeg, and not all that far behind Ottawa and Calgary. Surprising to see Halifax down the list that far. I thought it was more densely populated than that. I suspected that Victoria would be ahead of Halifax, but not that far ahead.

They urgently need to get this population-within-a-circle up. My proposal:

- Build apartments on national historic sites, parks, and industrial facilities
- Get rid of all commercial buildings, hospitals, and universities and replace them with apartments too
- Add glass domes under water so that the under water population can match the population of cities that don't have as much water

Montreal seriously needs to get rid of Mount Royal too. It is dragging them down. Imagine how beautiful the circle would be if they covered it in condos.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

They urgently need to get this population-within-a-circle up. My proposal:

- Build apartments on national historic sites, parks, and industrial facilities
- Get rid of all commercial buildings, hospitals, and universities and replace them with apartments too
- Add glass domes under water so that the under water population can match the population of cities that don't have as much water

Montreal seriously needs to get rid of Mount Royal too. It is dragging them down. Imagine how beautiful the circle would be if they covered it in condos.

It sounds a bit like Vancouver in reality, who needs hospitals, etc., or anything but condos downtown? To increase density, they could continue filling in False Creek, considering the job is half done already. Seriously though, in the largest cities, you will find that the density is there no matter what the geography.

[zoomer]

I'm pretty sure Montreal really doesn't care about it's 3 km radius population numbers, nor should it.

This really isn't a competition but just another way of viewing statistical information that's more consistent across cities. The 3 km radius for most cities accounts for the variables, although it's not the best for Montrela, Toronto and perhaps Vancouver - in those cases the 8 km radius might make more sense.

I would say it's more informative than the actual 2021 Stats Canada downtown population numbers, which experts devised yet people pick apart for inconsistencies. For example I would take the radius numbers as a more meaningful indicator of core population vs. these downtown numbers (but yes, those are two different things):

scroll to see the table

Downtown 2021 Population

Halifax - 20,267
Calgary - 38,663
Victoria - 40,681
Winnipeg - 42,394
Edmonton - 55,997
Ottawa - 62,725
Montreal - 88,169
Vancouver - 113,516
Toronto - 237,698

Again measuring different things, but in terms of core population I prefer radius.

Cities are different, that's cool and awesome. The fact that some will be less populated within a defined area due to geography is a fact. Doesn't make that city better or worse. Some people will prefer a largely uninterrupted land area for urban exploring while others will enjoy the breaks mountains and water provide. Larger cities will also have infrastructure that doesn't hold population such as the rail lines into Toronto, but they enable a large number of people to enter the city

Really not a competition folks, just another way of understanding cities.

[someone123]

That downtown data is interesting but why look at only population and not jobs? Isn't "downtown" more about commercial activity corresponding to employment than place of residence anyway? I'd argue you can have a downtown without residents but you can't have a downtown without employment. I'd also argue it's good to look at both because to some degree there's a trade-off between commercial and residential land use.

The areas chosen are highly variable and somewhat arbitrary so a density calculation puts it in perspective. You may say that it just reflects how big the different downtowns are, but downtown Fredericton is considered to cover a larger land area than downtown Vancouver (6.5 vs 6.2 square km).

Edit: It looks like that link above shows 2016, not 2021.

Downtown 2016 population plus jobs:

Halifax - 20,267 + 48,295 = 68,562
Victoria - 40,681 + 48,345 = 89,026
Winnipeg - 42,394 + 70,870 = 113,264
Edmonton - 55,997 + 92,735 = 148,732
Calgary - 38,663 + 137,030 = 175,693
Ottawa - 62,725 + 124,865 = 187,590
Vancouver - 113,516 + 163,695 = 277,211
Montreal - 88,169 + 299,245 = 387,414
Toronto - 237,698 + 503,575 = 741,273

Population plus jobs per square km:

Victoria - 89,026 / 8.1 = 10,990
Edmonton - 148,732 / 11.5 = 12,933
Winnipeg - 113,264 / 7.3 = 15,516
Halifax - 68,562 / 4.1 = 16,722
Ottawa - 187,590 / 9.7 = 19,339
Calgary - 175,693 / 6.0 = 29,282
Montreal - 387,414 / 13.2 = 29,349
Toronto - 741,273 / 16.6 = 44,655
Vancouver - 277,211 / 6.2 = 44,711

This fits pretty intuitively with cities I've been to (all but Winnipeg). Calgary is very employment heavy, Vancouver has comparable density but is a bit smaller than Montreal and a lot smaller than Toronto. Victoria is more residential than Halifax, with about as many jobs in twice the land area.

[GreaterMontréal]

Downtown Montreal is basically Ville-Marie + Griffintown

Ville-Marie 125k and Griffintown 15k. There are about 300k jobs in downtown Montreal.

Also, there are about 135k students in the downtown area.

That's more than 500k people in the core every working day.

60km radius , 1hr drive or less. (with no traffic)
Toronto , +- 8M
Montreal , just above 5M
Vancouver , just above 3M
Calgary , just shy of 2M
Edmonton , +- 1.7M
Ottawa , +- 1.6M

100km radius, accessible to people who WFH but commute into town just a few days a week. The circle or polygon is located on the Canadian side only.

Toronto , 10M
Montreal , 5.9M
Vancouver , +-3.3M
Calgary , just above 2M

[zoomer]

/\ and don't forget about tourists, people staying in hotels, coming downtown to eat, special events, etc. I'll be one of those in Montreal during September!

someone123 that math seems a bit like gerrymandering to get a result. If you look at plain numbers there are more people living in the urban core of Victoria vs. Halifax however you calculate that (the Stats Canada downtown number or as shown by the radius of 3, 5 or 8 km), Halifax has more in the suburbs. Both have a similar number of jobs downtown, yet out of that you get some weird calculation about jobs and people per square km because you're using the downtown definition and land area even though the downtown jobs are concentrated in a much smaller area in Victoria.

Not sure why you wouldn't just look at the actual population and actual job numbers. It's likely that Halifax probably has about 20 to 30% more jobs if you were to use the same land area as the Stats Canada downtown definition because then you're getting into more residential as with Victoria. So real numbers, the number of people working and living in the same urban core area is larger in Victoria. I'm not sure why that's so hard for some people to understand or why people would even care about that to go beyond the actual numbers. It's not as if they're not both great cities. Even if was very close or Halifax had more - so what? How would that change anything?

You might as well consider other factors, Halifax has far more students, both get tourists and cruise ship visitors (Victoria 838,400 vs. 328,000 for Halifax) and overnight hotel stays (2.8 million for Victoria vs. 1.63 million hotel nights for Halifax), plus the harder to calculate day trippers which would be larger for Victoria due to the proximity to the Vancouver, the rest of Vancouver Island and the US. Important to note that not all hotels or tourists are downtown in either city but that's where it's concentrated.

sources: https://www.cruiseatlanticcanada.com/atlantic-canada-cruise-industry-poised-for-strong-2025-season/

https://money.ca/news/halifax-tourism-soars

https://www.douglasmagazine.com/tourist-spending-victoria?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[logan5]

My favorite stat is residential density. That's what activates a city and gives it life at all hours and all year round.

That's why I was happy to hear the City of Vancouver is considering allowing residential in the Mt. Pleasant Industrial Area. This will activate a section of Broadway that is very quiet after work hours.

[zoomer]

Interesting - will it drive out existing industrial and if so what type? If it's low value industrial then I tend to think that the land is better used for residential. Hopefully the city can designate other lands for that use if applicable.

Yah, for some reason people frown on cities with a high percentage of residential units in the downtown, it does make for more lively and liveable cities and creates jobs that might not otherwise exist as well.

Another key factor for vibrant downtowns is the weather, where people want to be out and about walking, shopping and eating outside. In colder climates you'll find street life reduces dramatically for 4 to 5 months as people travel more so in cars, transit, underground or the above ground connections.