Population Growth and Density of Ottawa-Gatineau

[Nowhere]

I wonder how Radio-Canada calculated the urban density. 1,945 people / km² for 2021 for Ottawa - Gatineau according to the website linked below, rather than the 2,520 / km² cited by Radio-Canada.

Kanata is far enough that they consider it a separate urban area with a surprisingly higher density than the Ottawa - Gatineau urban area, 2,199/km².

Map of Ottawa urban area : https://www.citypopulation.de/en/canada/ontario/_/UA0616__ottawa_gatineau/
Map of Kanata urban area : https://www.citypopulation.de/en/canada/ontario/_/UA0399__kanata/

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Yup, there are lots of ways to interpret statistics.

In 2001, Calgary’s population was 977,810; its urban area was 427 km2; giving a density of 2,282 people per km2.
In 2001, Ottawa-Gatineau had 1,127,704 people; in an area of 380 km2; giving a density of 3,091 people per km2.

Based on that, I would say that Ottawa-Gatineau was winning the ‘density competition’ by a fair amount, in 2001.

Fast forward to 2021, and Calgary has increased its urban area by 201 km2, while Ottawa-Gatineau has only increased its urban area by 189 km2. So, Ottawa-Gatineau started smaller and increased by a smaller amount, compared to Calgary.

Well, why is Calgary being praised and Ottawa-Gatineau vilified? Because Calgary’s density increased, while Ottawa-Gatineau’s dropped.

How can that be, if Ottawa-Gatineau increased their urban area by a smaller amount? Because more people mover to Calgary than to Ottawa-Gatineau – a lot more people. Calgary’s population increased by 504,698, while Ottawa-Gatineau’s population grew by 306,644. Thus, Calgary was fortunate enough to have enough new people come there to compensate for the large growth in its urban area.

It turned out that there was something of an ‘oil boom’ during recent times. That puts money into Alberta, which attracts people. Looking at the population growth numbers: Calgary and Edmonton grew by about 50%, having the highest draw (petroleum money); Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau by about 27%, being quite desirable places; ‘Winter’peg, being less desirable, grew by only 19%; then there were the two Quebec-based cities, Montreal and Quebec City, which only grew by about 18% (perhaps because of the language issue); Hamilton was at the bottom of the growth list at 14% (but, having visited Hamilton, I can understand why).

I have sometimes heard people proclaim that “numbers don’t lie.” But, sometimes, they don’t tell the whole story, either. There are usually reasons behind the numbers.

Oh, and the urban density competition, even after Calgary’s gain and Ottawa-Gatineau’s decline, still goes to Ottawa-Gatineau, with a 2021 density of 2,520, over Calgary’s 2,358 people per km2.

Oh, and if you go to the website listed above, you can find interesting phenomenon; like the sudden increase in Ottawa-Gatineau’s urban size when Watson became mayor. (I will leave you to decide if it was payback for help getting elected. It may not be, since there were several cities that increased the rate of urban expansion around the same time.)

Good analysis and as usual better than the journalists who have a story to push (not that they are wrong that 20 years of Ottawa development has been unending sprawl). When you look only at density but ignore the increase in the urban area you are making a meaningless comparison.

So our huge increase in housing in Stittsville Rockland etc doesn't count against us but adding huge swaths of farmland to the urban boundary and then only slowly developing it does.

The Green belt is also irrelevant to this analysis even though as others said it is a huge source of sprawl. The only thing I will say to that is having the Greenbelt and places like Mer Bleu, Green Creek, Chipmunk trail, the beaches close to the city does have value.

[phil235]

Not that Ottawa doesn’t have some big issues, but it seems that the Experimental Farm is included in Ottawa’s calculations, which is a pretty big hit to the city’s density. I’m not clear on the greenbelt. If that is also included, then that is the whole answer as to why Calgary is denser. Because from the eye test, it definitely is not.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not that Ottawa doesn’t have some big issues, but it seems that the Experimental Farm is included in Ottawa’s calculations, which is a pretty big hit to the city’s density. I’m not clear on the greenbelt. If that is also included, then that is the whole answer as to why Calgary is denser. Because from the eye test, it definitely is not.

Only been to Calgary once about 10 years ago but I was surprised by how dense it wasn’t outside the core area (e.g. we have and had back then mid/high rises sprinkled all around town…didn’t notice similar there).

Doesn’t change that Ottawa’s excessively sprawly. I largely blame the farm and the belt.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

Only been to Calgary once about 10 years ago but I was surprised by how dense it wasn’t outside the core area (e.g. we have and had back then mid/high rises sprinkled all around town…didn’t notice similar there).

Doesn’t change that Ottawa’s excessively sprawly. I largely blame the farm and the belt.

Yeah, I have family in the Calgary hinterlands and it is really sprawly. Ottawa actually has quite a lot of high rises/multi family housing in its suburbs, relatively speaking.

Agreed, the greenbelt and farm exist and are big sprawl generators.

[YOWflier]

And satellite imagery at the above scale doesn't convey that type of density all that well. You just see built up area where it’s visible* but it could be chalk full of SFHs.

* are these images typically captured at a time of year where deciduous tree canopy isn’t developed yet? Something like that could easily affect the appearance of density.

[Harley613]

No matter how the data is presented, I will always be opposed to extending the outer suburbs when we have so much farmland in the Greenbelt. In my perfect world, we expropriate the farms, preserve the natural spaces, and open up the next 50 years of sustainable growth.

[OTSkyline]

Yet the City of Ottawa keeps approving expansions, rubber-stamping all low-density SFH neighbourhoods while delaying and fighting new denser projects within the greenbelt; opposing height & density even on major roads near rapid transit.

[Uhuniau]

Yes, Ottawa's sprawl situation sucks, but those stats are for the CMA, which includes Gatineau and other not-Ottawa (and not-Gatineau).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Full disclosure, I've never been to Calgary or Edmonton, but they do seem more like American Cities, with a tower cluster Downtown and a sudden drop to single family outside the core. But yes, they are far more compact as they don't have Greenbelts and they've grown by annexing areas outside town bit by bit instead of amalgamating with rural counties far and wide, which encouraged further sprawl in Ottawa (and Gatineau).

Calgary and Edmonton's downtown and urban-y areas are a lot smaller than Ottawa's, or even Winnipeg's. That's the advantage of having had more decades of pre-war history and development behind you.

Height isn't everything. (Height actually isn't anything.)

[Acajack]

Is it me or is that page very annoying to use? There is a selection box in the middle of the screen that won't go away.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Greenbelt is what kills us when it comes to lack of density, for better or worse. That, and the ridiculous expanse of land, thanks to Mike Harris. Gatineau has some huge gaps as well, with Golf Clubs in the west and nothingness between the airport and Anger, followed by another stretch of nothing to Masson and Buckingham.

That said, the inner Greenbelt to me seems far denser than Calgary or Edmonton. Clusters of towers in quite a few spots. The "urban" downtown neighbourhoods stretch further as well, roughly 13kmx6km, while Calgary, there isn't much outside Downtown and the Beltline (3kmx2km) and Edmonton, a bit more expansive than Calgary (maybe 4kmx3km).

Full disclosure, I've never been to Calgary or Edmonton, but they do seem more like American Cities, with a tower cluster Downtown and a sudden drop to single family outside the core. But yes, they are far more compact as they don't have Greenbelts and they've grown by annexing areas outside town bit by bit instead of amalgamating with rural counties far and wide, which encouraged further sprawl in Ottawa (and Gatineau).

You should visit before making such claims. Calgary has infill occurring at insane levels that are hard to keep track of. There are 3 new inner city neighbourhoods concurrently under construction now on previous institutional or brownfield sites: University District, Currie Barracks, East Village. Inner ring suburbs are all seeing massive intensification. In some ways this multifamily residential boom is bigger than the crazy oil glut days of '08 with so many office towers. In fact Calgary's new home builds are now 60+% multifamily. There is far more to the inner city outside of Beltline and DT. Across the river is not all SFH's any longer. Sure there are some but the density has increased dramatically. Kensington, Mission, Bridgeland, Marda Loop, Inglewood, Ramsay, Sunalta, Hillhurst, Killarney.

As for Edmonton, they're making strides too. The old airport is being made into a massive new inner city community.

Edit: completely forgot about Quarry Park in Calgary (also new community on old industrial land well within city limits.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Harley613

If you look at Ottawa and Calgary side by side at the same scale, the difference is jarring. Calgary is so dense and contained within or close by it's ring road. Ottawa looks like a random paint accident with very little sense to it's sprawl. The furthest you can walk in one direction and still be within the urban agglomeration is 9 kilometers less in Calgary than in Ottawa, and in Ottawa that extra 9kms is unserviced greenbelt land that we are extending our utilities across.

Everyone keeps mentioning Ottawa's experimental farm and greenbelt limiting the density while ignoring the enormous tracts of parkland in Calgary. Just look at the satellite view and see Fish Creek park in the south (largest urban provincial park in Canada iirc) and Nose Hill in the north.

[Harley613]

Calgary's parkland within it's urban agglomeration is sensible. Yes there is Nose Hill and Fish Creek, but it's not like they are extending services through kilometers of farm and parkland to distant suburbs like Ottawa is.

[DogsWithJobs]

Correct me if I am wrong but the greenbelt and experimental farm are irrelevant as this analysis is showing the delta between two timeframes in which both those things existed. So they are not a contributor to these percentages. Zero development in those areas remained zero development.

The number simply shows that Ottawa is the worst offender when it comes to new development density and expanding urban boundaries. So we are adding too much land and making very poor use of the land we already have so they don't even come close to balancing out. If we were extremely dense and lost 18% that would be one thing, but to be very sparse and still lose 18% of our density is an impressive failure.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Calgary and Edmonton's downtown and urban-y areas are a lot smaller than Ottawa's, or even Winnipeg's. That's the advantage of having had more decades of pre-war history and development behind you.

Height isn't everything. (Height actually isn't anything.)

Totally agree. Pre-war growth is a huge contributing factor to how urban a city is.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You should visit before making such claims. Calgary has infill occurring at insane levels that are hard to keep track of. There are 3 new inner city neighbourhoods concurrently under construction now on previous institutional or brownfield sites: University District, Currie Barracks, East Village. Inner ring suburbs are all seeing massive intensification. In some ways this multifamily residential boom is bigger than the crazy oil glut days of '08 with so many office towers. In fact Calgary's new home builds are now 60+% multifamily. There is far more to the inner city outside of Beltline and DT. Across the river is not all SFH's any longer. Sure there are some but the density has increased dramatically. Kensington, Mission, Bridgeland, Marda Loop, Inglewood, Ramsay, Sunalta, Hillhurst, Killarney.

As for Edmonton, they're making strides too. The old airport is being made into a massive new inner city community.

That's great to hear. It does seem that my admittedly not fully informed comment was relatively accurate, but Edmonton and Calgary are arguably doing more than Ottawa today.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

Correct me if I am wrong but the greenbelt and experimental farm are irrelevant as this analysis is showing the delta between two timeframes in which both those things existed. So they are not a contributor to these percentages. Zero development in those areas remained zero development.

The creation of the Greenbelt doesn't change that delta, no, but the very existence of the Greenbelt absolutely continues to contribute to Ottawa's sprawl, and the nature of that sprawl.

[RuralCitizen]

Even if we were allowed to build on the farm and the greenbelt, it wouldn't help the situation if we are to build the same way we are currently building. You'd have the same density as what's beside these spaces. Don't tell me we will be building better. Just look at the fiasco that is the Rideau Canyon, and the infinite sprawl of Orleans.

Then what do you do once those areas are fully built on? Continue the sprawl?

This would only offer temporary band-aid solution to provide vacant land near the urban city. The end result is less green space bigger population, more congestion. People from current suburb would still have to cross the "former greenbuilt" to get to the core, with added congestion/traffic from additional housing. The size of the city wouldn't be reduced. It would also not help in terms of house affordability. Big developers would rush to buy the amount of "new" land. The construction of housing would be limited to the amount of labour available and the supply chain. Can't built more houses than the construction industry can handle, which is the current problem. We can't build fast enough to meet the current demand. So housing remains unaffordable.

I'm tired of these easy quick fix arguments about removing the farm and the greenbelt. Removing them isn't a sustainable long-term solution. Once they are gone, they are gone. The space is protected, has proven health and environmental benefits. Let's just move on.

What we should do is celebrate these spaces even more, work on adding functionality to them so more people can get to use them and benefit more from them. We should build extremely densely around them to provide access to more people to green space. (think towers near central park New York). There shouldn't be height restrictions for the areas beside the Greenbelt as it is far enough from Parliament and there's no view to be blocked. Replace the existing low density housing and build very high mixed-use towers along the north side of Hunt Club. People want to live, work, and be entertained near where they live. No need to have a backyard if you live next to the Greenbelt.

Also, if you want more people to live in towers, you need to offer more condos that meets family needs. Unless you are single or a young couple, living in a 700 sq.ft. shoe box isn't what people want. Stack a bunch of suburban homes into a tower, I'm sure people would buy in. You need more 1700+ sq.ft. units. with 3-4 bedrooms.

With this new high density, you can built a ring LRT that connect Blair along hunt club, south keys, woodroff, and end at Bayshore.

You want more density, bring it to existing areas along main corridors outside the downtown area. Who says that towers need to be downtown and be limited to the table top?

[J.OT13]

I wouldn't support redeveloping the Experimental Farm (Civic aside, for reasons I've listed on the subject's thread) or much of the Greenbelt (maybe some areas along the O-Train would be ok).

We still have countless Federal Campuses that could be redeveloped. Confederation Heights, Tunney's, NRC (at last a strip along Blair). Pineview Golf Course.

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I wouldn't support redeveloping the Experimental Farm (Civic aside, for reasons I've listed on the subject's thread) or much of the Greenbelt (maybe some areas along the O-Train would be ok).

We still have countless Federal Campuses that could be redeveloped. Confederation Heights, Tunney's, NRC (at last a strip along Blair). Pineview Golf Course.

I've always thought Pineview Golf course formed part of the Greenbelt.