Calgary 2013 Civic Census - Page 6

Just Build It · #**101** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 7:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

I had expected a much bigger increase given the massive number of units available to be occupied over the last cycle. Instead they ended up staying vacant.

Why would expect that? What massive number of units that have come on-line during the last cycle are you talking about?

Instead of just blathering on about this why don't you back it up with some facts. Please tell us about this massive number of units that have become available and where they are located and what time they have come available.

Doug · #**102** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

I had expected a much bigger increase given the massive number of units available to be occupied over the last cycle. Instead they ended up staying vacant.

It does reinforce the perception that the inner city condo market is a bubble.

suburbia · #**103** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Build It

Soon Panorama will have developed all of their land then the population will start its downward trend unlike the Beltline which will continue to increase.

You mean downward like West Downtown, Eau Claire, Mission and Bridgeland?

As an aside, nice to see an area like Panorama have over 2,200 shared wall dwellings (IE apartment condos, row houses and duplexes). That is substantially more than Bridgeland. Beltline of course dominates the entire city on this statistic, but I wouldn't have expected Panorama to be better than Bridgeland

Just Build It · #**104** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 7:58 PM**

Look at the longterm. Bridgeland and Mission as well as downtown West End have had slight deceases over the years, but over the long haul they have increased whereas Panorama and others neighbourhoods of it's cycle will apex and then go through the standard drop in population until they settle comfortably into a lower population and stay at that level forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

You mean downward like West Downtown, Eau Claire, Mission and Bridgeland?

As an aside, nice to see an area like Panorama have over 2,200 shared wall dwellings (IE apartment condos, row houses and duplexes). That is substantially more than Bridgeland. Beltline of course dominates the entire city on this statistic, but I wouldn't have expected Panorama to be better than Bridgeland

Rusty van Reddick · #**105** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

Beltline is #1 in Calgary as measured by count of vacant dwellings at 510. #2 has less than half that.

Only 26.6% of dwellings in the Beltline are occupied by their owners! I knew there were a lot of rental properties, but didn't think it was 10,000 units.

Just eyeballing the doc I see that both Bankview and Bowness have a higher PERCENTAGE of vacant dwellings than does Beltline. Why does it surprise you- and move you to use bold letters- that the neighbourhood with the greatest number of dwellings would also have the greatest number of vacant ones?

The inner-city population decreases that you highlight are trivial- you had to also see the five-year numbers and you must have noticed that these numbers are incredibly stable, especially when compared to, say, the hollowing-out of inner city neighbourhoods in US cities. Eau Claire, which has a relatively tiny population already of less than 2000 and thus inevitably more year-to-year statistical volatility associated with very small numeric changes, has the same population and the same number of dwellings as it did in 2009.

The inner city is stable or growing. That's great for the city.

Chadillaccc · #**106** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug_Cgy

I believe Rockyview has been counted in CMA for a long time. I think you might be referring to MD of Foothills (Okotoks/High River)?

Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Sorry

Rusty van Reddick · #**107** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

That will be the interesting number. Calgary's share of metro growth has been dropping.

It's still basically a unicity. Dropping from 95% to 90% isn't the trend you want it to be.

I have no problem with Calgary looking like a real CMA and having real suburbs, but you've said this before and it's not going to look this way in our lifetimes.

Deepstar · #**108** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

I had expected a much bigger increase given the massive number of units available to be occupied over the last cycle. Instead they ended up staying vacant.

What are exactly are you trying to compare here?? The population growth of last year compared to the number of units over the last cycle, which how many years again?

Here's some advice; try comparing the number of units that have been developed over the last census period April 2012-April 2013 to the population increase of 513 people and then get back to us.

Doug · #**109** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

It's still basically a unicity. Dropping from 95% to 90% isn't the trend you want it to be.

I have no problem with Calgary looking like a real CMA and having real suburbs, but you've said this before and it's not going to look this way in our lifetimes.

But is the unicity at risk? The drop from 95% to 90% (or whatever the real number is, sure it is around there) happened very quickly. In 10-15 years, it could be 75%. In most CMA's that is due to the central city being landlocked. That is not the case in Calgary. Unicity municipal governance model is Calgary's main advantage as it largely sidesteps the endlessly inter-municipal squabbling that weighs down every other metro.

suburbia · #**110** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Build It

Why would expect that? What massive number of units that have come on-line during the last cycle are you talking about?

Instead of just blathering on about this why don't you back it up with some facts. Please tell us about this massive number of units that have become available and where they are located and what time they have come available.

See facts here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6210188&postcount=86

510 vacant dwellings in the beltline. Not all of these are new to the most recent cycle, as only 400 were added (though almost 500 were added the year before).

The next highest number of vacancies of any area in Calgary has less than half the number of beltline vacancies.

kora · #**111** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

But is the unicity at risk? The drop from 95% to 90% (or whatever the real number is, sure it is around there) happened very quickly. In 10-15 years, it could be 75%. In most CMA's that is due to the central city being landlocked. That is not the case in Calgary. Unicity municipal governance model is Calgary's main advantage as it largely sidesteps the endlessly inter-municipal squabbling that weighs down every other metro.

City of Calgary captures about 80% of regional population growth, a figure that has been relatively steady and is not anticipated to change in the next 5 years. In 20 years we might have a different picture, but can we really expect anything else unless we swallow Airdrie?

see Page 1-4
Suburban Residential Growth 2013-2017, City of Calgary
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/suburban-residential-growth-2013-2017.pdf

Doug · #**112** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kora

City of Calgary captures about 80% of regional population growth, a figure that has been relatively steady and is not anticipated to change in the next 5 years. In 20 years we might have a different picture, but can we really expect anything else unless we swallow Airdrie?

see Page 1-4
Suburban Residential Growth 2013-2017, City of Calgary
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Documents/Publications/suburban-residential-growth-2013-2017.pdf

Calgary should be ruthless in protecting its tax base and annex as many of the surrounding communities as possible.

freeweed · #**113** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Calgary should be ruthless in protecting its tax base and annex as many of the surrounding communities as possible.

I give Airdrie 20 years as an independent community. And even that might be cut short depending on what effect things like CrossIron have, if any.

kw5150 · #**114** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 9:11 PM**

Time to move on now. I forgot about Suburbia's little tidbit that he thinks he needs to add every year.

Radley77 · #**115** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 9:31 PM**

Globals got a colour-coded map of where communities saw most population changes from 2009-2013, which I think paints a better picture of the change that is happening. Only the outer-middle suburbs really seeing population dropping (1980's ish vintage - think places like Sundance, Hampton's and Lakeview):

http://globalnews.ca/news/741820/calgary-by-the-numbers-census-2013-results-released/

Doug_Cgy · #**116** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 9:49 PM**

I left the 'burbs earlier this year and moved to the Downtown West End. Best decision I ever made. Close to everything (parks/shopping/transit/nightlife & restaurants), it's so convenient.

Calgarian · #**117** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 10:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

I give Airdrie 20 years as an independent community. And even that might be cut short depending on what effect things like CrossIron have, if any.

I think Airdrie will always be an independent city, same with Okotoks and Cochrane. The only community I can really see us annexing is Chestermere.

Wooster · #**118** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 10:19 PM**

Multi-family to single-family split: 44/56

33/66 is the ten year pattern.

Growth patterns (not 100% sure if this is pop. or new dwelling units)
67% in developing communities
33% in developed communities

RyLucky · #**119** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radley77

Globals got a colour-coded map of where communities saw most population changes from 2009-2013, which I think paints a better picture of the change that is happening. Only the outer-middle suburbs really seeing population dropping (1980's ish vintage - think places like Sundance, Hampton's and Lakeview):

http://globalnews.ca/news/741820/calgary-by-the-numbers-census-2013-results-released/

Good to be a part of a healthy, thriving city!

kw5150 · #**120** Posted **Jul 25, 2013, 11:06 PM**

This inspired me to take a google satellite tour of the non-thriving Detroit. How is a city like that going to re-invent itself? The density for 5 miles around the core is so minimal it is hard to comprehend. Calgary is SUCH a different city than Detroit and we have a volatile economy at times as well. What the hell happened there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Good to be a part of a healthy, thriving city!