Calgary Census 2011

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Did they say what the Greater Calgary population is or do we have to wait for the federal census before we know if we are keeping Ottawa at bay for fourth place?

Census counts for CMAs will be released in March 2012 and yes they are part of the federal census. No worries about "keeping Ottawa at bay." Ottawa will never reclaim 4th place. It won't even be in 5th place this time, I expect. Edmonton will have passed it.

[Spring2008]

Originally Posted by Just Build It

They didn't say, but seeing as the city itself grew by 20k, the CMA would have grown by more than that. Ottawa has been averaging around 7-10k per year for their metro, so it's likely they've slipped a bit further behind.

http://www.airdrie.ca/airdrienow/pop_growth_sub.cfm

Don't know the exact 2011 figure for Calgary's CMA population but Airdrie alone grew by another 3,333, second highest amount ever.

2010 population was around 1,242,000....I'd say 2011 pop. is around 1,270,000.....growth is picking up again though, if anything i think the gap will only widen.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Census counts for CMAs will be released in March 2012 and yes they are part of the federal census. No worries about "keeping Ottawa at bay." Ottawa will never reclaim 4th place. It won't even be in 5th place this time, I expect. Edmonton will have passed it.

We passed them a couple years ago, but they have been doing a pretty good job of keeping up. You are probably right though, once Alberta gets back on track, Edmonton will pass Ottawa quickly.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by fusili

Suburbanite: "Condos are terrible and crime-ridden and can only work for singles and people without children"
Urbanite: "Suburbs are boring, car-dependent and environmentally destructive"

Same old, same old.



Interesting to see that Lower Mount Royal is the densest community. Beltline probably suffers density wise from Stampede and the considerable amount of office space north of 12th. Either way, it is growing and will see more and more residential and retail as time moves on. My prediction is that Beltline will continue to attract the majority of multi-family redevelopment (at least tower development) for some time as it has a huge supply of developable land (parking lots, single storey commercial) and probably the best location for proximity to the downtown. There will be minor tower development adjacent to select LRT stations (Brentwood, Heritage, Chinook), but I really don't see a market for that type of multi-family (towers) outside the Beltline until the Beltline is built out more fully. I mean, why would you live in a tower adjacent to Anderson Station, when you could get one in the Beltline? Places like South Calgary, Tuxedo, Bridgeland, Bankview, Killarney, will see more townhouse and mid-rise (4-6 storey) residential development, but nothing tower wise. Which I think is a good thing.

Another huge potential area is the westbrook mall area. The train ride in the morning into the downtown wil be spec-tac. The only thing with westbrook is (like you are saying) you just dont have the benefits of being really close to the downtown and all of the amenities.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

http://www.airdrie.ca/airdrienow/pop_growth_sub.cfm

Don't know the exact 2011 figure for Calgary's CMA population but Airdrie alone grew by another 3,333, second highest amount ever.

2010 population was around 1,242,000....I'd say 2011 pop. is around 1,270,000.....growth is picking up again though, if anything i think the gap will only widen.

With Cross Iron Mills now open and work beginning on a lot of other stuff around it, I imagine that Balzac and Airdrie will grow very quickly, along with NE Calgary.

Anyone know if they will ever include Okotoks and High River in the CMA?

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Anyone know if they will ever include Okotoks and High River in the CMA?

They will eventually, but we won't know until after the census results. The results will determine if that area is eligible. It's just a matter of time. Right now if they were to be added, it would add about 50-60k.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Another huge potential area is the westbrook mall area. The train ride in the morning into the downtown wil be spec-tac. The only thing with westbrook is (like you are saying) you just dont have the benefits of being really close to the downtown and all of the amenities.

I could see Westbrook getting 2 maybe 3 more towers in the next 10 years. Most of the development there I imagine would be 4-6 storey residential condos, maybe a few office buildings. Definitely a great location though, LRT access downtown, proximity to MRU, good views.

While we are doing alright for tower development (especially in the Beltline), what I think we will see a lot more of in the next 10-15 years will be a lot of townhouse and mid-rise condos in more inner city locations. Right now, there isn't really a mid-rise district in Calgary, but I think it's time has come. A place where 30+ year olds with young children can move to, still have amenity space, but not as busy as Beltline. Rosemont, Tuxedo, Killarney, Bridgeland, South Calgary are places I see slowly becoming denser, but still less busy than the downtown.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

We passed them a couple years ago, but they have been doing a pretty good job of keeping up. You are probably right though, once Alberta gets back on track, Edmonton will pass Ottawa quickly.

Even in Calgary's slowest growth year 2009-2010, we still grew more than Ottawa. Aside from various migration patterns, Calgary has a couple of things that will help push it even further ahead of Edmonton/Ottawa.

-A much smaller seniors population...especially compared to Ottawa
-the upcoming addition of the south communities.

Another thing to note is that Ottawa experienced huge growth spurts in the 80's and 90's due to it's, then burgeoning hi tech industry. Those days are pretty much over......while Ottawa will remain a high tech centre, the days of huge growth, if any growth are done. Ottawa's growth in the future will be slow, steady public sector growth.

If Ottawa was to re-claim 4th spot it would be a long ways away.....

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

They will eventually, but we won't know until after the census results. The results will determine if that area is eligible. It's just a matter of time. Right now if they were to be added, it would add about 50-60k.

Wow, that would help us gain ground on the real metro population of Ottawa. The NCR is about 1.5million IIRC.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Wow, that would help us gain ground on the real metro population of Ottawa. The NCR is about 1.5million IIRC.

The real metro pop of Ottawa is kind of confusing, and isn't an apples to apples comparison. What they call the 'metro' or NCR population of 1.45 million is actually quite a huge area....more than 5 times the area of Calgary's CMA. The 1.45 million population that has been often used includes areas such as:

Renfrew County
Lanark County
Prescott Russell
Leeds Ganville
Glengarry


Add in those Ontario areas, and the whole metro area is 25,000 sq km about 5 times the area of Calgary's CMA. That doesn't even include townships on the Quebec side that are part of the metro NCR population, but not in the CMA.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

funny how you advocate starting on a project like this instead of starting with parts of town that have been benefiting from subsidies for years and will continue to rely on them indefinetely. Unlike greenfield suburbs, the east village accomplishes other goals such as remediating a crime ridden part of town, and encourages people to live in a more sustainable manner. I dont like how the TIF has been handled with the east village, and dont believe the bow should be included in the TIF area, but its a far better investment of funds than in your standard new subdivision.

I use the East Village as an example because the public cost per taxable domicile is astronomical. If the argument is developments should absorb the full cost of their externalities lets start with the most expensive ever.

From a municipal finance perspective the East Village is not a better investment of funds. The same or greater tax yield could have been realized just about anywhere else with a must smaller outlay in infrastructure costs.

That isn't to say that urban redevelopment doesn't have its own fiscally intangible benefits but the argument that great savings are to be realized by diverting development to urban intensification is usually ridiculous.

There is nothing in the world more expensive than upgrading infrastructure in established urban areas to support high-density land use.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I use the East Village as an example because the public cost per taxable domicile is astronomical. If the argument is developments should absorb the full cost of their externalities lets start with the most expensive ever.

From a municipal finance perspective the East Village is not a better investment of funds. The same or greater tax yield could have been realized just about anywhere else with a must smaller outlay in infrastructure costs.

That isn't to say that urban redevelopment doesn't have its own fiscally intangible benefits but the argument that great savings are to be realized by diverting development to urban intensification is usually ridiculous.

There is nothing in the world more expensive than upgrading infrastructure in established urban areas to support high-density land use.

That argument is plain wrong. For starters, what was the cost of the blight, and the additional resources for police to patrol the area? Second, additional costs in the area are not just for residents of the east village, ie the underpass to the stampede grounds helps traffic circulation for that area as well, and the riverfront is a public amenity that benefits Calgary as a whole. Thirdly, are you even factoring any of the income from the city selling off its lands to developers, the significant tax revenue from additional housing, office and retail properties? Forthly, I doubt the infrastructure updgrading cost for the east village compares to costs such as updgrading interchanges, widening roadways, extending C-trains, building new hospitals, new sewer treatment facilities etc that are requried for green field developments.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

That argument is plain wrong. For starters, what was the cost of the blight, and the additional resources for police to patrol the area? Second, additional costs in the area are not just for residents of the east village, ie the underpass to the stampede grounds helps traffic circulation for that area as well, and the riverfront is a public amenity that benefits Calgary as a whole. Thirdly, are you even factoring any of the income from the city selling off its lands to developers, the significant tax revenue from additional housing, office and retail properties? Forthly, I doubt the infrastructure updgrading cost for the east village compares to costs such as updgrading interchanges, widening roadways, extending C-trains, building new hospitals, new sewer treatment facilities etc that are requried for green field developments.

and you forgot about the cost of treatment for all of the depressed, isolated suburbanites......

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I use the East Village as an example because the public cost per taxable domicile is astronomical. If the argument is developments should absorb the full cost of their externalities lets start with the most expensive ever.

From a municipal finance perspective the East Village is not a better investment of funds. The same or greater tax yield could have been realized just about anywhere else with a must smaller outlay in infrastructure costs.

That isn't to say that urban redevelopment doesn't have its own fiscally intangible benefits but the argument that great savings are to be realized by diverting development to urban intensification is usually ridiculous.

There is nothing in the world more expensive than upgrading infrastructure in established urban areas to support high-density land use.

I'm actually ok with doing the same sort of actual cost to innercity redevelopments. As you said there are intangible benefits, and yes they probably have actual value to the city, but why not start at a point of actual acknowledged cost, and then make an informed decision if that cost is worth subsidizing for the good of the city.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by kw5150

and you forgot about the cost of treatment for all of the depressed, isolated suburbanites......

thats in the billions in lost productivity. I did see something I like in Mackenzie towne on saturday. The area near the main street that is full of townhomes and condos, by the future LRT station had a nice skate park feature which was full of kids and the pond across the street had a decent amount of people strolling around.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I use the East Village as an example because the public cost per taxable domicile is astronomical. If the argument is developments should absorb the full cost of their externalities lets start with the most expensive ever.

From a municipal finance perspective the East Village is not a better investment of funds. The same or greater tax yield could have been realized just about anywhere else with a must smaller outlay in infrastructure costs.

That isn't to say that urban redevelopment doesn't have its own fiscally intangible benefits but the argument that great savings are to be realized by diverting development to urban intensification is usually ridiculous.
There is nothing in the world more expensive than upgrading infrastructure in established urban areas to support high-density land use.

Some infrastructure costs are lower for intensification (transportation especially), but you are right concerning water, sewer and electrical upgrades. However, as a tax revenue to maintenance ratio, more dense areas do win out.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

That argument is plain wrong. For starters, what was the cost of the blight, and the additional resources for police to patrol the area? Second, additional costs in the area are not just for residents of the east village, ie the underpass to the stampede grounds helps traffic circulation for that area as well, and the riverfront is a public amenity that benefits Calgary as a whole. Thirdly, are you even factoring any of the income from the city selling off its lands to developers, the significant tax revenue from additional housing, office and retail properties? Forthly, I doubt the infrastructure updgrading cost for the east village compares to costs such as updgrading interchanges, widening roadways, extending C-trains, building new hospitals, new sewer treatment facilities etc that are requried for green field developments.

I don't see how redeveloping the east village without dispersing the poverty industry is going to reduce the need for policing in the area.

Do you have any comprehension as to just how much money has been spent on the East Village already - just to get where it is now? I am pretty comfortable predicting that the East Village will never be anything other than a financial black hole for the city.

And I would bet everything I own the city could have serviced an equivalent number of dwellings somewhere in the proximity of 144th Ave N.E. and realized a superior tax yield for a fraction of what has been spent on the East Village.

Do you really believe that every post-war planner was mentally retarded and set out to develop in the most impractical and costly way possible? Digging up cities is really, really expensive.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by kw5150

and you forgot about the cost of treatment for all of the depressed, isolated suburbanites......

We self-medicate with Applebees and swinger parties.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm actually ok with doing the same sort of actual cost to innercity redevelopments. As you said there are intangible benefits, and yes they probably have actual value to the city, but why not start at a point of actual acknowledged cost, and then make an informed decision if that cost is worth subsidizing for the good of the city.

I don't seriously argue for this, I just offer it as a counterpoint to the fixation that somehow the cost of burying 250mm water mains in virgin prairie is a colossal expensive relative to tearing up block after block of city streets.

Calgary already has a "Centre City Utility Levy" that is used to partially finance infrastructure improvements - mostly water and waste water. I'm not a fan - that should be accomplished through taxation and not a patch work of levys and fees at the time of development.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Some infrastructure costs are lower for intensification (transportation especially), but you are right concerning water, sewer and electrical upgrades. However, as a tax revenue to maintenance ratio, more dense areas do win out.

That often isn't the case since density lends itself to much, much higher optimal replacement intervals.