2014 Civic Census

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Tuscany at one time had more people than the Beltline and where is it now? The same place Panorama will be in 5-10 years.

No doubt that it is not fair comparing newer areas to older ones. That being said, *no* area of Calgary ever had as many people as Panorama has now. Additionally, you'll note something quite different when you compare Tuscany to Panorama. Panorama has about twice the percentage of homes not being single family, and I think that is of note. The two areas are quite different in this sense.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DarthMalgus

For a city that gets typecast as having an office-heavy inner city that shuts down after 5, we actually have a relatively large and growing downtown area population...not sure what the point of your posts is?

The actual downtown is indeed office heavy, and indeed shuts down after 5 (or perhaps 6).

[Colin]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The actual downtown is indeed office heavy, and indeed shuts down after 5 (or perhaps 6).

You mean the CBD?

[fusili]

As fun as it has been to follow a debate in which I can only see one side on this forum, here is some terms to help everyone out:

CBD (Central Business District): Not an actual defined place, usually refers to the "community" of Downtown Commercial Core. Most commercial realtors distinguish between our "downtown" office market, which usually aligns with this community, plus adjacent ones. CBRE, I believe, includes Beltline office as a separate sub-market from other suburban markets.

Centre City: An area defined in our Municipal Development Plan that includes the communities of Downtown Commercial Core, Beltline, Downtown West, Eau Claire, Chinatown and East Village.

Downtown Business Revitalization district: A business association that encompasses roughly the same boundaries as the Downtown Commercial Core. Not sure if Eau Claire or Chinatown businesses are included here.

Downtown: A vague term open to interpretation.

[DarthMalgus]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The actual downtown is indeed office heavy, and indeed shuts down after 5 (or perhaps 6).

Same could be said of the actual CBD of Toronto. The larger downtown/Centre City is, however, a different story.

Btw - to avoid any further misinterpretations, my use of the term "downtown" includes what, as Fusili's pointed out, the MDP defines as Centre City". Disagree with it if you wish, but I will continue to use it because it's easier to type.

[ByeByeBaby]

I hate percentage growth graphs, since for areas with little residential population (industrial, greenfield) Ma Clampett dies and the population drops by 20% as a result. I prefer dot density diagrams myself. Here's the 2013-2014 net population change, with one dot representing 10 people (red for decrease, green for increase; sorry if there are any colourblind folks; let me know and I'll provide another version.)


Here it is for the entire 2010-2014 period:



What is instructive, though, is to compare it to the 2006-2010 period, which is much more typical of the growth pattern Calgary has historically had, where older suburbs (i.e. ~20-30 years old) lose population as children move out of home. (Actually, the historical trend was for the middle of the donut to have flat population, not the gain seen here):

[fusili]

That is amazing ByeByeBaby. Great work. Good to see how much inner city growth is occurring.

Looks like pre-2010, the only areas in the inner city growing significantly were Beltline and Spruce Cliff (due to Ovation, Encore and whatever the heck the other tower is called). And Beltline only really started growing in 2003.

[Chadillaccc]

Thank you for providing that. Awesome.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Here it is for the entire 2010-2014 period:

Why the drop in the west end of downtown?

[Spring2008]

Amazing work BBB. Very good aerial perspective of what's happening across the inner city.

[Deepstar]

Nice graphs BBB! I love how the last four years are so much different than the previous four years.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Why the drop in the west end of downtown?

There were some houses that were torn down in the last few years. Other that that I'm not sure.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Why the drop in the west end of downtown?

I think it's because fewer people live there.

[fusili]

Windsor park seemed to add a bunch of people this census period, but I can't figure out why.

EDIT- Sorry, I meant since 2010. About 800 people, but for the life of me, I can't think of a single large project in the area. Only ~50 units were added in that 4 year period, yet 800 people moved in. Something is up.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Why the drop in the west end of downtown?

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I think it's because fewer people live there.

Had I asked why there were no green dots in the west end of downtown, then your response would have been a deserved sarcastic response, but as I asked "why the drop [in people living] in the west end", your response was just a failed attempt at sounding like the world's best mayor and debating champion. Trust me, you're no where close.

Anyway, I figured 'some' houses had come down, but it looks actually somewhat more significant than that. Thinking it through now, it is noteworthy that in this four year boom of increased central density, the west end hasn't had any additions of note whatsoever. That's too bad.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

Windsor park seemed to add a bunch of people this census period, but I can't figure out why.

EDIT- Sorry, I meant since 2010. About 800 people, but for the life of me, I can't think of a single large project in the area. Only ~50 units were added in that 4 year period, yet 800 people moved in. Something is up.

Natural growth? Demographic shift singles to families?

Does Windsor Park include the new towers on the east side of MacLeod? Might make up a significant number of that 800 if so.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Natural growth? Demographic shift singles to families?

Does Windsor Park include the new towers on the east side of MacLeod? Might make up a significant number of that 800 if so.

It shouldn't include those towers, those would be in Manchester (who's dwelling count change reflects those new towers). 800 new people in just 2400 dwelling units would mean every third house has added a person in the last five years. Possible for sure, but that is a significant change in a short time. Maybe there is a large movement out from empty-nesters and lots of new families moving in?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

It shouldn't include those towers, those would be in Manchester (who's dwelling count change reflects those new towers). 800 new people in just 2400 dwelling units would mean every third house has added a person in the last five years. Possible for sure, but that is a significant change in a short time. Maybe there is a large movement out from empty-nesters and lots of new families moving in?

Vacant Dwellings
2010 - 119
2014 - 61

Occupied Dwellings
2010 - 2,242
2014 - 2,333
Delta - 91

Dwellings/Population

SF
2010 - 341/721
2014 - 346/771

DUP
2010 - 306/607
2014 - 339/793

APT
2010 - 1,527/2,089
2014 - 1,528/2,341

TWN
2010 - 87/135
2014 - 85/158

CNV
2010 - 109/157
2014 - 103/173

Duplexes and Apartments put a significant dent (>70%) in the population change (438 of 613). The rest could be in multiplexes and other structures that aren't broken down by community this year. The 2014 count has 181 people not in the above dwelling types for Windsor Park.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Natural growth? Demographic shift singles to families?

Does Windsor Park include the new towers on the east side of MacLeod? Might make up a significant number of that 800 if so.

That is Manchester, which had a growth of 714. Windsor Park had 613 on its own; mostly between the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 censuses. I'm not sure why; my guess is it's at least partially increased intensity in the multifamily north of Chinook along 56th and 57th Aves.

There's actually a decent relationship between the proportion of rental units in a community and its' growth; this is true even outside the inner city in areas like Windsor Park (16.1% growth), Banff Trail (15.9% growth), Forest Lawn (10.6% growth) and Highland Park (14.2% growth). See the figure below. I suspect this is a symptom of the rental space crunch we're seeing, with vacancies at incredibly low rates. More basement units, more secondary suites, more people with roommates, etc. Calgary's facing an affordable housing crisis.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

That is Manchester, which had a growth of 714. Windsor Park had 613 on its own; mostly between the 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 censuses. I'm not sure why; my guess is it's at least partially increased intensity in the multifamily north of Chinook along 56th and 57th Aves.

There's actually a decent relationship between the proportion of rental units in a community and its' growth; this is true even outside the inner city in areas like Windsor Park (16.1% growth), Banff Trail (15.9% growth), Forest Lawn (10.6% growth) and Highland Park (14.2% growth). See the figure below. I suspect this is a symptom of the rental space crunch we're seeing, with vacancies at incredibly low rates. More basement units, more secondary suites, more people with roommates, etc. Calgary's facing an affordable housing crisis.

What community has nearly 100% rentals?