Density in urban neighbourhoods

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by trueviking

Best I could do for Winnipeg at 3kms was 140.108

Interesting
Best I found for Hamilton, Ontario is 146,883.

[Docere]

NYC is the only North American city where 50000 per square mile+ (or roughly 20000 per sq km) densities are common.

Only about 6-7% of the City of Toronto population lives in neighbourhoods with this level of density.

[softee]

Originally Posted by biguc

LA is very surprising. I took this up to 7 km to make a Paris-sized ring and LA maxes out at about 1.1m, which is the same as Montreal's highest and a hair higher than Toronto.

I mean, this probably shouldn't be that surprising. LA has had sleeper density going back to the 2000s; I remember it being a big deal on this board when it turned out LA's metro density was higher than New York's. But that's different than a sustained blob of Toronto/Montreal density spread over the size of Paris.

For reference, Brooklyn easily breaks 2m at the same scale. So, Brooklyn density still eludes Canadian cities. But we shouldn't feel bad: Australian cities only come in around 600k.

I guess it's all surprising.

I clicked around a bit at a 7km radius for Toronto & also hit a bit over 1.1 million. It's interesting how Montreal & Toronto have almost the exact same population density within both a 3 km & 7 km radius considering the differences in built form in both the hi-rise cores areas & the more further flung low-rise neighbourhoods. Same can be said for L.A.

[Docere]

Some Vancouver condo areas:

Olympic Village (Tract 49.06)

Population: 8,739
Density: 21711 per sq km

Yaletown (Tracts 59.07 and 59.08)

Population: 12,077
Density: 21655 per sq km

Coal Harbour (Tracts 66.02 and 67.02)

Population: 11,489
Density: 17675 per sq km

[Docere]

Vancouver may have more "missing middle" than Toronto but it sounds like it has more "detached land-hogging" than Toronto with 81% zoned for detached.

% of residential land for detached:

Vancouver 81
Toronto 62
Montreal 46

https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-co...g-the-Missing-Middle_November-2024_1.pdf

Shaughnessy, the city's signature area for a century, has lot sizes closer to York Mills than Rosedale.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Docere

Vancouver may have more "missing middle" than Toronto but it sounds like it has more "detached land-hogging" than Toronto with 81% zoned for detached.

% of residential land for detached:

Vancouver 81
Toronto 62
Montreal 46

https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-co...g-the-Missing-Middle_November-2024_1.pdf

Shaughnessy, the city's signature area for a century, has lot sizes closer to York Mills than Rosedale.

Do you have a source? Is that statistic supposed to be for Metro Vancouver, or the City of Vancouver? And is it up to date? (There have been big changes in zoning in the past couple of years in both Metro and the City, including provincial requirements for higher densities around transit). Vancouver doesn't have an 'open space' zone, but Toronto does. All parks in the City of Vancouver are zoned residential, and so are golf courses (as are schools, and most of Highway 1)

[Docere]

It's for the city of Vancouver, that's the figure in the report.

[Docere]

City of Toronto, population in neighbourhoods by level of density (per sq km):

15000+ 253,276
7500-15000 566,986
5000-7500 658,640
3500-5000 647,790
Less than 3500 610,125

So a pretty even split between high density, mid-density, low-middle density and low density neighbourhoods, and nearly a tenth living in the very high density areas.

* I "altered" two neighbourhoods, removing the East Harbour from South Riverdale and the Toronto Islands from St. Lawrence-East Bayfront since in both cases a very low density tract dramatically altered the density of the "neighbourhood." In addition, South Eglinton-Davisville figures reported are incorrect; the area falls in the very high density category.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Docere

It's for the city of Vancouver, that's the figure in the report.

Thanks. Toronto is obviously a megacity, since the 1998 amalgamation, and Montreal since 2002, while the City of Vancouver is only a very small part of Metro, and each municipality has zoning quirks.

The 82% number is a somewhat misleading indicator of what realistically could be developed in the past. The 'detached' description suggest single-family homes, and doesn't capture the reality that for many years almost every residential lot has allowed 3 units as-of-right, with both a basement suite and a laneway home.

I think the analysis in whatever report you were looking at was probably based on land parcels, and probably about 10 years ago. Around 2015, 82% of city lots were zoned RS or RT for primarily detached housing (as noted above, up to 3 units per lot). But as those lots were generally smaller than in commercial or industrial zones, they actually only represented 66% of the land area, and if you exclude the parks and golf courses, the Arbutus rail corridor, most of Highway 1, the Grandview cut SkyTrain route, and some waterfront railtracks (all zoned residential), it was less than 60% of the city's land area.

But that a historical analysis, as zoning laws have been fundamentally overhauled. Through the city's multiplex zoning framework and provincial legislation, multiplexes up to 4-6 units are now widely permitted on almost all residential lots to increase density. And in much more of the city than a few years ago, rowhouses and multi-family apartments are much more widely allowed too.

[Docere]

Population by density of neighbourhood (per sq km), former Metro municipalities:

Old Toronto

15000+ 233,116
7500-15000 402,171
5000-7500 129,640
3500-5000 68,565

East York

7500-15000 32,090
5000-7500 39,270
3500-5000 44,100

Etobicoke

7500-15000 22,605
5000-7500 54,570
3500-5000 115,800
Less than 3500 155,760

North York

15000+ 20,160
7500-15000 56,160
5000-7500 201,625
3500-5000 163,975
Less than 3500 235,060

Scarborough

5000-7500 185,230
3500-5000 218,890
Less than 3500 219,305

York

7500-15000 53,960
5000-7500 48,305
3500-5000 36,460

[Docere]

I'll do Vancouver next. Would be great to find Montreal neighborhood stats, but the main unit for data is the borough.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But that a historical analysis, as zoning laws have been fundamentally overhauled. Through the city's multiplex zoning framework and provincial legislation, multiplexes up to 4-6 units are now widely permitted on almost all residential lots to increase density. And in much more of the city than a few years ago, rowhouses and multi-family apartments are much more widely allowed too.

Toronto is in the same boat. Multiplexes of 4 units are allowed as of right everywhere, with up to 6 in certain locations. The uptake varies by neighbourhood, though. Near where I live, multiplex developers are going gangbusters. There's a street near me where seemingly every 6th detached home was recently torn down to build a 4-plex. Meanwhile, in rich areas with high land values and postwar suburban areas there's been very little change.

The 2026 census is probably too early to see a noticeable effect but, if current trends continue, it'll be interesting to see in the 2031 census whether some dissemination areas that were stagnant or declining in population for years turned the tide.

[Docere]

Vancouver (via Social Indicators Profiles):

15000+ 109,780
7500-15000 109,620
5000-7500 197,505
3500-5000 135,640
Less than 3500 82,510

Since Van city is pretty small and there's only 22 official neighbourhoods, here they are categorized by density level.

15000+: Downtown, West End
7500-15000: Fairview, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant
5000-7500: Grandview-Woodland, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Renfrew-Collingwood, Sunset, Victoria-Fraserview
3500-5000: Arbutus Ridge, Hastings-Sunrise, Killarney, Marpole, Riley Park, South Cambie
Less than 3500: Dunbar-Southlands, Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Shaughnessy, Strathcona, West Point Grey

Interesting to see the geographic clustering. The first ring of neighbourhoods outside the downtown peninsula - Fairview, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant - are all around 8000-10000 per sq km. Five East Van neighbourhoods cluster around 6000 per sq km. And beyond Kits/Fairview, the posh West Side neighbourhoods are very low density (Shaughnessy is only 1873 per sq km).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Docere

Vancouver (via Social Indicators Profiles):

Has the City of Vancouver published any Social Indicator population data for the city's neighbourhoods since the 2020 Profiles that quoted 2016 Census data?

Note that because the neighbourhoods are small, even in 2016 the density quoted can sometimes be a poor indicator of the reality on the ground. For example, in 2016, Strathcona’s population density was 3,300 people per sq km. However, Strathcona’s land area includes a large amount of industrial land. Excluding industrial, port and railway lands, the density of Strathcona is higher than the city average and similar to east- and south-side neighbourhoods like Sunset and Renfrew-Collingwood.

[Docere]

Strathcona is (roughly) made up of three census tracts.

Population and land area (square km), 2021 census:

Tract 57.01 3,492 0.23
Tract 57.02 5,012 1.63
Tract 58 4,151 1.09

4,289 per square km

And the "on the ground" feel may be double that, given that it looks like industrial land takes up about half this area.

It is odd to see Strathcona grouped with the semi-suburban, low density areas of the West Side.

So that leaves about 70,000 Vancouver residents living in the lowest-density cluster.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Docere

Strathcona is (roughly) made up of three census tracts.

Population and land area (square km), 2021 census:

Tract 57.01 3,492 0.23
Tract 57.02 5,012 1.63
Tract 58 4,151 1.09

4,289 per square km

And the "on the ground" feel may be double that, given that it looks like industrial land takes up about half this area.

It is odd to see Strathcona grouped with the semi-suburban, low density areas of the West Side.

So that leaves about 70,000 Vancouver residents living in the lowest-density cluster.

The lower density southern and western parts of the city partly reflect the history of the changing boundaries. South Vancouver was a separate municipality from 1892 to 1929, starting roughly around 16th Avenue. In 1908 Point Grey split off as a separate municipality from South Vancouver, with the boundary along Cambie Street. Both were suburban municipalities with their own retail arterial streets served by rail transit in the form of BC Electric streetcars linking them to Vancouver. They were incorporated into the City of Vancouver in 1929, but by then had established a grid with many streets having larger lots than the 33' lots generally found in the City of Vancouver (and 25' in the earliest development area of Strathcona and Downtown).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Toronto is in the same boat. Multiplexes of 4 units are allowed as of right everywhere, with up to 6 in certain locations. The uptake varies by neighbourhood, though. Near where I live, multiplex developers are going gangbusters. There's a street near me where seemingly every 6th detached home was recently torn down to build a 4-plex. Meanwhile, in rich areas with high land values and postwar suburban areas there's been very little change.

The 2026 census is probably too early to see a noticeable effect but, if current trends continue, it'll be interesting to see in the 2031 census whether some dissemination areas that were stagnant or declining in population for years turned the tide.

Do you have any pictures of the new ones recently built or u/c? I'm curious about the implementation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Toronto is in the same boat. Multiplexes of 4 units are allowed as of right everywhere, with up to 6 in certain locations. The uptake varies by neighbourhood, though. Near where I live, multiplex developers are going gangbusters. There's a street near me where seemingly every 6th detached home was recently torn down to build a 4-plex. Meanwhile, in rich areas with high land values and postwar suburban areas there's been very little change.

They seem really good in not-astronomically-expensive "bungalow belt" areas with postwar buildings of low heritage value, as long as there are also some design requirements.

In Vancouver (city, and Burnaby and some other areas) the property values are so high that even if you replace a house with 4 or 6 units, the end result of (land + demo + construction)/N will still not be very affordable. But in practice a lot of inner Vancouver is now zoned higher, like 20 storeys near transit in some areas that previously were detached, so the situation is pretty good.

Halifax has policies like this too but the results are pretty mixed and the city has some areas that should be heritage districts but aren't. The economics are good, since the properties are below 1 million in a lot of cases, but the design is sometimes a huge step down. In one part of town people are complaining about a hangar-like 4-storey structure with tiny windows and metal siding. It's just a few blocks away from some really nice Edwardian-era brick townhouses.

I am talking about these:


(Google Maps)

Being a couple blocks away from the one on the top left here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/halifax/comments/1tdfcnd/were_way_behind_halifax_seeks_answers_to_missing/

A lot of the commentary on it is depressing, with a mix of self-flagellating or aesthetically braindead "we can't have reservations about this because housing crisis" logic, combined with "this is what you get when you allow too much density and not enough setbacks". This building design would be ugly at any number of floors or any amount of setbacks. The planning rules don't force ugly design and some of these are nice (not the ones pictured), but it is up to the developer. Note that rents for these units is probably around the $3k a month range and they don't even have decent windows.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Do you have any pictures of the new ones recently built or u/c? I'm curious about the implementation.

This thread on urbantoronto has pics of a fair number: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/multiplexes.35914/

Generally pretty non-descript but given Toronto's narrow lot sizes in the central city it's not a huge issue. Some are a lot better than others, and lots that haven't made that thread as they are hard to spot and look like regular renovations.

Between Spring 2023 and Fall 2025 about 800 building permits have been issued totaling around 1,300 new units (lots are conversions of existing SFHs or 2 unit dwellings). In addition to this just under 1,000 permits for laneway houses/garden suites. The majority of these have been in Old Toronto. That may not sound like a huge number but given the policies have only been in place for a couple years and lag-time for development it's not bad at all. The number of inquiries and permit requests have been increasing exponentially, and the drop in the market (plus 6 unit allowance) has allowed a lot more projects to pencil out.

Just in my area alone I can think of about a dozen multiplex projects under construction or recently completed, with about the same number of laneway suites.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Thanks! Some interesting stuff there.