Statistics Canada Reports II - Page 163

Nouvellecosse · #**3241** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That's all true, but "for some reason" makes it sound like some strange mystery when for me it's pretty obvious. Downtown is the common precinct that everyone across the city and metro area share and in order to play that role there needs to be things of relevance to people people across the metro area. So while it makes sense for people to want to be near all those things and therefore to live downtown, if the percentage gets too high then they'll eventually start to displace some of those things and replace them with the local residents and services geared toward locals that you will find in residential nabes.

Many cities including Vancouver and Toronto have been concerned enough about that to actively legislate the preservation of commercial space so downtowns remain centers of attraction despite all the residential build up. It's a case of the extremes on either end not being great. Too little residential and the place is dead outside business hours and most of the businesses are meant to serve 9-5 office workers. But too much residential and there's not enough room for other uses and there can be NIMBY complaints if there's too much vibrancy as it starts to become a residential neighbourhood. That, and residential buildings tend to be lower budget and less prestigious than commercial so some people think too much of it makes a downtown less aesthetically attractive.

zoomer · #**3242** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 5:45 AM**

I agree in theory Nouvellecosse, but in practice I don’t think either Vancouver or Toronto has experienced a lack of current or the risk of insufficient future office/commercial space and jobs, etc. because of over construction of residential.

Maybe it can be argued that downtown space was/is more expensive because it’s cheaper to build outside of it?

I wish internet searching was more effective (or that I’m quicker/better at it) because a quick search on Google gave this AI response which is hard to verify along with other info:

“In 2004, Vancouver implemented a two-year moratorium on converting office space to other uses to protect downtown jobs.”

I assume that moratorium ended and I also vaguely recall that there was discussion (but was there action?) around zoning changes or not allowing rezoning of a couple projects from office use to residential. Maybe a Vancouver member here has more insight and a better memory.

Anyways new residential often comes with new retail/commercial and occasionally some office space plus hardly any office buildings have been built the past few years or likely in the next half decade. With changes in society, AI, etc. I don’t think there will be a surge in demand, and even then Vancouver and Toronto still have a ton of offices, especially the later.

As for office/commercial buildings being more attractive - maybe? Although if you had to name your top 10 favourite buildings in Vancouver how many would be commercial/office?

But yes, your point is a good one and I do remember the criticism in the early 2000’s that Vancouver was at risk of becoming a resort downtown just for residential living but that never came to pass. At least my perspective from across the water.

Spocket · #**3243** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:03 AM**

Quote:

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.

Well, don't forget about the water.

shappy · #**3244** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 1:35 PM**

A polygon shape can also be applied which is obviously more selective. Not sure if I've covered the best locations but I've tried to exclude large parks, etc. I've also tried to keep the sizes very close:

Halifax:

private image hosting

Victoria:

MolsonExport · #**3245** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 2:27 PM**

roughly accurate Montreal-area polygon.

MolsonExport · #**3246** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 2:29 PM**

greater GTA (?) polygon

Drybrain · #**3247** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 2:33 PM**

Delete

Drybrain · #**3248** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 2:58 PM**

These are interesting to me in part because they really show A: how different the results can be when using polygons vs. circles, but also because B: they really show how population size and density is only one factor in urban vitality.

Winnipeg and Edmonton exemplify both points. Measuring their 3-km radii shows a much higher population than Victoria and Halifax, yet the population is within the same ballpark, or even a little lower, when using the polygon method centered on the core.

Also, and this is no dig at either city, but I think most people would acknowledge that both Victoria and Halifax generally have a lot more foot traffic and more going on at street level, over a larger area, than Edmonton and Winnipeg do in their cores. (Some of that can probably be chalked up to tourism in both cites, but not all of it by a longshot.)

Nouvellecosse · #**3249** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoomer

I agree in theory Nouvellecosse, but in practice I don’t think either Vancouver or Toronto has experienced a lack of current or the risk of insufficient future office/commercial space and jobs, etc. because of over construction of residential.

Maybe it can be argued that downtown space was/is more expensive because it’s cheaper to build outside of it?

I wish internet searching was more effective (or that I’m quicker/better at it) because a quick search on Google gave this AI response which is hard to verify along with other info:

“In 2004, Vancouver implemented a two-year moratorium on converting office space to other uses to protect downtown jobs.”

I assume that moratorium ended and I also vaguely recall that there was discussion (but was there action?) around zoning changes or not allowing rezoning of a couple projects from office use to residential. Maybe a Vancouver member here has more insight and a better memory.

Anyways new residential often comes with new retail/commercial and occasionally some office space plus hardly any office buildings have been built the past few years or likely in the next half decade. With changes in society, AI, etc. I don’t think there will be a surge in demand, and even then Vancouver and Toronto still have a ton of offices, especially the later.

As for office/commercial buildings being more attractive - maybe? Although if you had to name your top 10 favourite buildings in Vancouver how many would be commercial/office?

But yes, your point is a good one and I do remember the criticism in the early 2000’s that Vancouver was at risk of becoming a resort downtown just for residential living but that never came to pass. At least my perspective from across the water.

My response was meant to simply point out that the concern exists rather than to comment on whether or not the concern is justified in any particular case. Also, if cities with such provisions in place don't seem to have a problem in those areas it could just as easily be evidence that the mitigation practices worked at preventing the problem rather than that the mitigation was unnecessary to begin with.

Regarding Toronto, I was able to find the .pdf file pretty easily which has a section on the downtown policy. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-247259.pdf

It basically just requires that office space be preserved and puts restrictions on conversions of office or other non-residential uses into residential. There was another larger study called the office space needs final report which will be used by council to decide on future policy.

I also did a quick search for Vancouver and found this 2023 council report:
https://council.vancouver.ca/20231114/documents/r4.pdf

"Additionally, the central business district (CBD), as shown below, represents just 13% of the
downtown land area. City policy restricts the ability to develop residential in this relatively
small area, ensuring the economic viability of stand-alone office and hotel projects.
Residential continues to be permitted in all other portions of the downtown peninsula. The
employment-only policy in the CBD has helped to enable the recent office development
cycle which brought a significant amount of new high quality space to the market,
reinforcing the regional role of Downtown Vancouver."

(p.14)

My only point was that cities are aware of the importance of retaining commercial uses downtown and for the need to have downtown as an employment center rather than those uses potentially being smothered by residential.

Innsertnamehere · #**3250** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 3:42 PM**

Definitely interesting. Downtown Hamilton around that 6 square km mark fares worse than I expected:

That ~40,000 downtown population seems remarkably common across Canada.

I'm curious to see how this progresses, Hamilton has about 3,000 residential units under construction in this area right now which should push it up closer to 50,000 total.

Median incomes in the areas also probably have a lot to do with perceived vitality. Hamilton has a slightly higher population than Halifax for example, but some of the lowest income dissemination areas in Canada are located in Downtown Hamilton (the lowest recorded a median household income in 2020 of just $18,200!). This drags down overall vitality a fair bit I think as the population can't support the same type of business mix.

someone123 · #**3251** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 4:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'm curious to see how this progresses, Hamilton has about 3,000 residential units under construction in this area right now which should push it up closer to 50,000 total.

I think some of these numbers are pretty outdated or will soon be. In Halifax, the inner area grew from 20k to 25k during one census period, and looking at the development map, this polygon has around 45 developments under construction.

A lot of the land in these "downtowns" as they are defined is just standard residential, and the cities that have more of this relative to commercial or institutional or public land development show up as having more density. It's all sort of within the error bars as most Canadian downtowns don't have exceptionally high densities.

Innsertnamehere · #**3252** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 4:48 PM**

I'm not sure where they are pulling the data. The map shows a population of the City of Toronto as 3.053 million - this doesn't align with the 2021 census (which showed 2.704 million) nor the annual population estimates.

someone123 · #**3253** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'm not sure where they are pulling the data. The map shows a population of the City of Toronto as 3.053 million - this doesn't align with the 2021 census (which showed 2.704 million) nor the annual population estimates.

Funny, if I draw the borders of the Halifax CMA for 2021 I get 455k. The 2021 census was 465,703 and the 2024 estimate (which has expanded borders) is 530,167.

shappy · #**3254** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 5:12 PM**

Not sure where they are pulling numbers but for Toronto City that isn't far off at all according to this data from July 2022: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/data-research-maps/toronto-at-a-glance/

MolsonExport · #**3255** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 5:47 PM**

a 100km radius centred roughly on Dongguan (China) yields 68 million people.
One centred on New Delhi yields nearly 63 million.
One centred on Jakarta yields nearly 53 million.
One centred on Tokyo yields 41 million.
One centred on Grise Fjord yields 176.

someone123 · #**3256** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:02 PM**

If I made up a qualitative test for what's part of a city "downtown" or not in a North American context, the area would would have to be a gathering place with a region-scale hinterland, especially with a commercial component. There are also local commercial areas that draw from a neighbourhood; you can often tell the difference by the nature of the business (e.g., department store everyone from the city goes to versus a grocery store you wouldn't travel across town for).

There are many correlates like:

- Having a high lot coverage with minimal setbacks
- Having buildings with a wide variety of uses, and a lot of different uses in one area (shops, offices, public amenities, etc.)
- Having activity that is not just linear (like a small town's shopping street) but grows outward, with activity spilling onto adjacent streets
- Building for pedestrians and transit because it is too busy for everyone to use cars

I don't really think of 20th century detached housing neighbourhoods as being "downtown" at all, even if they are within a certain radius of city hall. That's just a sign of a smaller city.

craner · #**3257** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

a 100km radius centred roughly on Dongguan (China) yields 68 million people.
One centred on New Delhi yields nearly 63 million.
One centred on Jakarta yields nearly 53 million.
One centred on Tokyo yields 41 million.
One centred on Grise Fjord yields 176.

That’s awesome.

Nouvellecosse · #**3258** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

If I made up a qualitative test for what's part of a city "downtown" or not in a North American context, the area would would have to be a gathering place with a region-scale hinterland, especially with a commercial component. There are also local commercial areas that draw from a neighbourhood; you can often tell the difference by the nature of the business (e.g., department store everyone from the city goes to versus a grocery store you wouldn't travel across town for).

There are many correlates like:

- Having a high lot coverage with minimal setbacks
- Having buildings with a wide variety of uses, and a lot of different uses in one area (shops, offices, public amenities, etc.)
- Having activity that is not just linear (like a small town's shopping street) but grows outward, with activity spilling onto adjacent streets
- Building for pedestrians and transit because it is too busy for everyone to use cars

I don't really think of 20th century detached housing neighbourhoods as being "downtown" at all, even if they are within a certain radius of city hall. That's just a sign of a smaller city.

Same here. The only thing I might add is some type of psychological component that denotes the area as being central to the identity of the region such as a City Hall, central square, or other prominent (and often historic) landmarks. To me that distinguishes a secondary node like Y&E from the actual downtown despite meeting pretty much all the other criteria.

logan5 · #**3259** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:53 PM**

I was arguing awhile back in the Vancouver section that the Central Broadway Corridor should be included in our downtown boundary. It meets all the criteria for what is considered “downtown”, and False Creek is too small a separation to make it a distinctively different area. The downtown peninsula is only 2.2 sq miles. That has to be the smallest downtown on all of North America, among the major cities.

Even mighty Toronto has a lot of low density homes within its downtown borders, so I suppose a certain amount is acceptable before you draw the line.

EnvisionSaintJohn · #**3260** Posted **Jul 23, 2025, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

a 100km radius centred roughly on Dongguan (China) yields 68 million people.
One centred on New Delhi yields nearly 63 million.
One centred on Jakarta yields nearly 53 million.
One centred on Tokyo yields 41 million.
One centred on Grise Fjord yields 176.

Thought I could beat that in Uttar Pradesh, but not quite. No doubt the Pearl River Delta has the highest in a 100km radius, even with 15% or more of the area lost to water (depending where you place the centre)

Seems like it's very close between CDMX and Sao Paulo for most populous 100km radius in the Americas with both around 31 million, but would have been too tedious to find out for sure. Was hard enough to find the right spot to get above 25 million near New York.

The Tri-state area (or rather, quad state area) is a distant third in the Americas, but has about a pacman's mouth worth of area taken up by water.