Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
Although the population density is still lower than its neighbouring city Vancouver that got a decades-old headstart, Burnaby is still retaining more parklands and green spaces, including agricultural spaces, which most likely explains its low population density number.
|
No, that's not why Burnaby's population density is less than half Vancouver's. Vancouver has more agricultural land than Burnaby. Neither of them have any significant agricultural production, and haven't for decades. Burnaby has more 'green' space - but if you took the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area out of the statistics it actually has less land devoted to parks and green space.
Burnaby's population density is lower because it's growing more slowly. A great deal of the growth is concentrated in those nodes of towers, around some, but not all, the transit stops. In Vancouver it's much more spread out across the city, along the arterials, and increasingly in other parts of the city too.
Burnaby has grown steadily, and no doubt will continue to do so. It typically adds about half the population growth of Vancouver. That's apparent if you look over a longer time period too - in the past 35 years Burnaby added 103,964 people. Vancouver added 229,863 in the same period.
Threaded Mode