News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

For comparison and discussion:

CANADA LARGEST CITIES (sort table by population density):
Toronto: 4,427.8 people/sq km
Montreal: 4,833.4 people/sq km
Calgary: 1,592.4 people/sq km
Edmonton: 1,320.4 people/sq km
Winnipeg: 1,623.3 people/sq km
Mississauga: 2,452.6 people/sq km
Vancouver: 5,749.7 people/sq km
Burnaby: 2,750.6 people/sq km
Brampton: 2,469.0 people/sq km

Wiki
 
IanO said:
For comparison and discussion:

CANADA LARGEST CITIES (sort table by population density):
Toronto: 4,427.8 people/sq km
Montreal: 4,833.4 people/sq km
Calgary: 1,592.4 people/sq km
Edmonton: 1,320.4 people/sq km
Winnipeg: 1,623.3 people/sq km
Mississauga: 2,452.6 people/sq km
Vancouver: 5,749.7 people/sq km
Burnaby: 2,750.6 people/sq km
Brampton: 2,469.0 people/sq km

Wiki
Click to expand...
Does this account for the many square kilometres of undeveloped farmland within city limits or only the urbanized area?
 
^^^

Another statistic that is meaningless on its own…

If you want it to have meaning, you need to know the area of park space per capita that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has more than 6.2 hectares of park space per 1,000 residents, considerably more than the national average of 4.4.

You need to know the area of industrial space per capital that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has a relatively high percentage of land within its city limits that is devoted to light industrial use.

You need to know the area of national and provincial and railroad spaces per capita that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator.

You need to know the area of undeveloped space reserved for future development that is not available for residential use until serviced and brought on steam and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has a relatively high percentage of land that is reserved for future development and a high percentage of that is reserved for industrial use.

If you do that, the resulting numbers will have context and comparability.

Without doing that, you can compare the density of individual neighborhoods and not the city overall as that will also have context and comparability. This will be true within the city as well.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, Wikipedia provides an estimate of 1,836.2/km2 for the "urban" area (including high-density parts of the suburbs, but excluding undeveloped or very lightly developed parts of the city).

While I think it could be debated which is truly the lowest among Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Regina etc. I think it would be very hard to come up with a consistent inclusion criterion that puts Edmonton higher than Burnaby or Mississauga.
 
David A said:

Strong resale homes market forecast for Edmonton this fall​


Click to expand...
I imagine some folks think that because of the rate we're building homes here, that prices are going to drop/homes won't be a good investment. The reality is that SF detached homes are desirable because of the underlying lot value, and most of the multi-family homes are being financed under MLI Select funding which mandates the homes be used as rentals for at least 10 years - so they're not even on the market yet, and won't be for a long time.
 
policyenthusiast said:
I imagine some folks think that because of the rate we're building homes here, that prices are going to drop/homes won't be a good investment. The reality is that SF detached homes are desirable because of the underlying lot value, and most of the multi-family homes are being financed under MLI Select funding which mandates the homes be used as rentals for at least 10 years - so they're not even on the market yet, and won't be for a long time.
Click to expand...
I would agree. I don't think the SF or multi family projects are being built on speculation, but mostly in response to a lot of people moving here, often because they are what I would call affordability refugees.
 
This Prime chunk of land just sold.....was curious why it took so long since the previous owners declared bankruptcy over a decade ago - the old "Golden West" golf course right? Or at least a section of it.
1754416379773.png
 
kcantor said:
^^^

Another statistic that is meaningless on its own…

If you want it to have meaning, you need to know the area of park space per capita that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has more than 6.2 hectares of park space per 1,000 residents, considerably more than the national average of 4.4.

You need to know the area of industrial space per capital that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has a relatively high percentage of land within its city limits that is devoted to light industrial use.

You need to know the area of national and provincial and railroad spaces per capita that is not available for residential use and delete it from the denominator.

You need to know the area of undeveloped space reserved for future development that is not available for residential use until serviced and brought on steam and delete it from the denominator. Edmonton has a relatively high percentage of land that is reserved for future development and a high percentage of that is reserved for industrial use.

If you do that, the resulting numbers will have context and comparability.

Without doing that, you can compare the density of individual neighborhoods and not the city overall as that will also have context and comparability. This will be true within the city as well.
Click to expand...
I did some of these calculations, using 2024 estimates for population, industrial land (vacant and used), parkland and urban area for Edmonton and Calgary. The railroad areas are a harder information to get, but I wouldn't expect a significant difference between both cities to be significant.

Using that information, and considering that the accuracy might fluctuate, Edmonton is ever so slightly more densely populated than Calgary (3035 ppl/sq km vs 3005 ppl/sq km), which can be seen as statistically the same (~3000 ppl/sq km).

Doing the same estimates for Burnaby, Brampton, Mississauga and Winnipeg, we get to ~5700, ~3900, ~3800 and ~2000 ppl/sq km respectively.

I did not do it for Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal as these are obviously in a league of their own in the context of Canada. I might do it later.

The conclusion here is that both Calgary and Edmonton are substantially more densely populated than many think, both have a substantial industrial and parkland area (among the highest in Canada).
A number that kind of surprised me is them being about 50% denser than Winnipeg, and not as far off Brampton and Mississauga as I expected. It is still just about half of Burnaby's, which is not as surprising, but a shocking number nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top