Calgary Census 2011

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Even though Panorama Hills is the neighborhood with the highest population, it's encouraging to see the Beltline increase every year despite it's boundaries not changing.

PH will top out in a year or two and then start to go down while the Beltline continues to increase.

Yea, I think the the Beltline ARP they stated that the pop. of Beltline in 2040 or 2050(I can't remember) will be 40,000. The fact is there is still lots of room for more high rise condos, especially in the Victoria Park area.

I can't believe the pop. density of Downtown West End is so low.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Cage

Correct, in the Cage household Mrs Cage drives to work and Mr Cage takes transit. Because the transportation to work question is only asked once per household, Mrs Cage gave the answer of drive to work.

Census and statistics derived from them are only as good as the questions and method of responses.

True, however you'd think it's equally likely the census taker would have had you or her answering, so it should all roughly balance out. Unless there's some inherent bias in Calgary whereby (random example) husbands always make their wives answer these questions, and wives typically drive whilst hubby takes transit.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by freeweed

True, however you'd think it's equally likely the census taker would have had you or her answering, so it should all roughly balance out. Unless there's some inherent bias in Calgary whereby (random example) husbands always make their wives answer these questions, and wives typically drive whilst hubby takes transit.

Or the wives were the only ones home while the husbands were at work when the census taker came around.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by mersar

Or the wives were the only ones home while the husbands were at work when the census taker came around.

Way to go,we have a winner!!!!

Wife works part time while I put in about 50 hours per week on average.

Another part of the bias is the census takers are generally stay at home parents and retired people who like to complete the initial census sweep during the day when full time down town workers (who are most likely to rely on transit) are at work. The dual income Yuppies might get picked up in the later sweeps.

[ByeByeBaby]

actual carpooling rates are probably nonexistent.

I think, on having a second look, more likely there was a systematic error in the survey, based on the low rate of carpooling. Perhaps the term carpooling may have been understood by many to mean "sharing a ride with strangers" rather than driving with anyone. Certainly only asking one person is a methodological problem.

Looking at the '06 Federal Census shows:

Mode                    06 Federal    11 Civic    Difference
Driver                      67.6%       74.1%         +6.5%
Passenger                    7.6%        1.7%         -5.9%
Transit                     16.8%       17.6%         +0.8%
Walk/Bike                    7.0%        6.1%         -0.8%
Other                        1.0%        0.5%         -0.5%

Transit and walk/bike are within 1% of the federal census, but the driver/passenger numbers are high on mushrooms. Or 80%(!) of the people who carpooled five years ago stopped, for no clear reason.

Unfortunately, the 2011 census may well be totally worthless.

[Deepstar]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I think, on having a second look, more likely there was a systematic error in the survey, based on the low rate of carpooling. Perhaps the term carpooling may have been understood by many to mean "sharing a ride with strangers" rather than driving with anyone. Certainly only asking one person is a methodological problem.

Agreed. My wife answered the census and said 'no' to carpooling, even though I drop her off at work every day

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Even though Panorama Hills is the neighborhood with the highest population, it's encouraging to see the Beltline increase every year despite it's boundaries not changing.

PH will top out in a year or two and then start to go down while the Beltline continues to increase.

There are still a substantial number of multi-family buildings going up in Panorama. It total it is likely approaching 40 multi-family structures. Additionally, there are a lot of row houses and semi-detached units, which also help with density. On Boris' map, firstly, I fully expect Panorama to hit at least the 4/5 purple colour. Second, and this will not dawn on people unless you go and see panorama, there is a lot of public / shared space. There is a protected creek with green space on both sides that goes through. There is also a rather large cliff area where you can't build. And there are large golf courses also. If you consider the built up area, it is in the absolute top tier of density city wide. If you include the golf courses, creek, green spaces & ponds, common facilities like the ecommunity centre, then it drops down to only the top quartile.

BTW - here is a satellite map of how much is still to be developed:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=panoram....6875&t=h&z=14

It could easily add 20% more people.

Aside 1 - one of the other reasons Panorama does better with density, and this is speculation, is that it has a better cultural diversity than other areas. There is some correlation to better sf utilization outside of the caucasian community - IE usage of basements, multi-generational situations, etc. I would speculate there are more loners in the inner city.

Aside 2 - it would be unfair to compare the beltline to Panorama as the beltline is a high-rise corridor whereas that is not going to be the case for developments outside the core area with the exception of a selection of TODs. It would be better to compare it to other inner city areas - and it kicks butt.

[DizzyEdge]

Anyone know the area of the Beltline? (or pop density)?

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Anyone know the area of the Beltline? (or pop density)?

Population: 19556
Dwellings: 13971
Area: 2.94459 sqkm
Density: 6641 persons/sqkm

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Population: 19556
Dwellings: 13971
Area: 2.94459 sqkm
Density: 6641 persons/sqkm

Thanks for the dwellings number. That means the average of people per dwelling in the beltline is <1.4, meaning the mode for all residences in the beltline is ONE person.

For comparison sake, Panorama has 19,851 people (IE more people than the beltline) and only 6,861 residences (less than half the number in the beltline) making for an average of people per dwelling close to 2.9 - more then double the density per residence as that in the beltline (and remember, that includes about 40 multi-family structures).

I think the beltline needs a 'marriage committee'. May even lower the crime rate!

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Population: 19556
Dwellings: 13971
Area: 2.94459 sqkm
Density: 6641 persons/sqkm

Interesting, that's almost exactly the density of "Old Toronto" circa 2001.. of course it has an area of almost 100 sqkm.. so we have a ways to go

[Boris2k7]

Rankings


Population:

1. 19851 - Panorama Hills
2. 19556 - Beltline
3. 19487 - Evergreen
4. 18838 - Tuscany
5. 16110 - Taradale


Dwellings:

1. 13971 - Beltline
2. 6871 - Evergreen
3. 6861 - Panorama Hills
5. 6380 - Tuscany
4. 6368 - McKenzie Towne


Area* (sqkm):

1. 20.57 - Calgary International Airport
2. 17.37 - East Shepard Industrial
3. 8.26 - Cranston
4. 7.64 - Foothills
5. 6.87 - Tuscany

* Not including Fish Creek Park (15.60) and Glenmore Park (10.16)


Density (persons/sqkm):

1. 10546 - Lower Mount Royal
2. 8156 - Mission
3. 6923 - Bankview
4. 6811 - Downtown West End
5. 6641 - Beltline

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Interesting, that's almost exactly the density of "Old Toronto" circa 2001.. of course it has an area of almost 100 sqkm.. so we have a ways to go

As my figures above show, Beltline isn't even the most dense community in Calgary, largely owing to the fact that the Stampede Grounds take up so much of the community's area and that Victoria east of 2nd Street S.E. isn't very developed yet.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Rankings


Population:

1. 19851 - Panorama Hills
2. 19556 - Beltline
3. 19487 - Evergreen
4. 18838 - Tuscany
5. 16110 - Taradale


Dwellings:

1. 13971 - Beltline
2. 6871 - Evergreen
3. 6861 - Panorama Hills
5. 6380 - Tuscany
4. 6368 - McKenzie Towne


Area* (sqkm):

1. 20.57 - Calgary International Airport
2. 17.37 - East Shepard Industrial
3. 8.26 - Cranston
4. 7.64 - Foothills
5. 6.87 - Tuscany

* Not including Fish Creek Park (15.60) and Glenmore Park (10.16)


Density (persons/sqkm):

1. 10546 - Lower Mount Royal
2. 8156 - Mission
3. 6923 - Bankview
4. 6811 - Downtown West End
5. 6641 - Beltline

Might be interesting to run Density (persons/dwelling) also. We'll quickly discover where all the lonely monkeys reside!

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

As my figures above show, Beltline isn't even the most dense community in Calgary, largely owing to the fact that the Stampede Grounds take up so much of the community's area and that Victoria east of 2nd Street S.E. isn't very developed yet.

Yeah - but then you could take the golf courses, cliffs, creek, community centre, ponds, etc. out of panorama hills too.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by suburb

Yeah - but then you could take the golf courses, cliffs, creek, community centre, ponds, etc. out of panorama hills too.

None of which will ever be developed.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

None of which will ever be developed.

So you're saying the BMO centre will be removed and condos put in its place? Maybe in 50 years.

Personally, I'm pleased that our planning process is thoughtful when it comes to nature and water.

What were your thoughts on the pathetic <1.4 per dwelling figure for the beltline? Big deal if the units are smaller. Doesn't do much when you only fill them with 1 person!

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by suburb

So you're saying the BMO centre will be removed and condos put in its place? Maybe in 50 years.

I never said that it would be removed. The Stampede grounds are very large and down south on the 17th ave connection development is always a possibility if it proves in their interest.

Golf courses, on the other hand, will generally stay as golf courses.

Personally, I'm pleased that our planning process is thoughtful when it comes to nature and water.

Nature and water? It's golf courses surrounded by suburban shitty crap. Denser crap than what was built before it, but still same old, same old.

What were your thoughts on the pathetic <1.4 per dwelling figure for the beltline? Big deal if the units are smaller. Doesn't do much when you only fill them with 1 person!

Panorama Hills will rise for a while and then hollow out like with ever other suburb. Beltline will continue increasing over time. And will have 2-3 times the density of the former. Have fun with Panorama when it's filled with 1-2 retirees per home in 20 years!

[danofkent]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I think, on having a second look, more likely there was a systematic error in the survey, based on the low rate of carpooling. Perhaps the term carpooling may have been understood by many to mean "sharing a ride with strangers" rather than driving with anyone.

That could certainly be true.

Another aspect could be that a lot of car poolers are husbands and wives. Since only one person per household was asked the question, the answer will inevitably be skewed. I can't remember whether the question was asked of whoever answered the door, or whether it was the main earner. If the latter, that would skew the results. Statistically, men are both more likely to be the main earner, and more likely to drive when a husband and wife travel together (based on statistics used to assess risk within the motor insurance industry).

In addition, many people who car pool take it in turns to drive. A two person car pool will have two people who drive 50% of the time, and they will likely both say that they normally drive in a car pool, rather than being the passenger.

It seems pretty clear that the question as it currently stands is flawed. Hopefully the city will recognise that and make appropriate changes before asking again in 2014.

[Surrealplaces]

It's apples to oranges. The dwellings in Panorama hills are also much larger than those in the beltline. I don't think anyone is disputing the density of a neighborhood like PH. It's well known that the newer suburbs are more dense. This helps a little bit, but in the end the problems associated with sprawl still apply. Still a step up from the older burbs though.


On a side note, I was the one who answered the census for our household and they never asked me about carpooling

Originally Posted by suburb

Thanks for the dwellings number. That means the average of people per dwelling in the beltline is <1.4, meaning the mode for all residences in the beltline is ONE person.

For comparison sake, Panorama has 19,851 people (IE more people than the beltline) and only 6,861 residences (less than half the number in the beltline) making for an average of people per dwelling close to 2.9 - more then double the density per residence as that in the beltline (and remember, that includes about 40 multi-family structures).

I think the beltline needs a 'marriage committee'. May even lower the crime rate!