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
 6K     0 

ChazYEG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've tried to do this myself a few times and always end up with a similar result, so it's awesome to see this from a different set of eyes. Everyone always rolls out the raw municipal boundary density number as some kind of "gotcha", but especially in Edmonton's case it doesn't paint the full picture at all. Then when you factor in above average industrial land uses, etc. I mean all you have to do is spend a few days in Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg and it becomes pretty clear...
 
Blizzard said:
I've tried to do this myself a few times and always end up with a similar result, so it's awesome to see this from a different set of eyes. Everyone always rolls out the raw municipal boundary density number as some kind of "gotcha", but especially in Edmonton's case it doesn't paint the full picture at all. Then when you factor in above average industrial land uses, etc. I mean all you have to do is spend a few days in Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg and it becomes pretty clear...
Click to expand...
This all makes sense, like here quite a bit of warehouse and industrial in Mississauga and probably Brampton too. Lot of the old industrial spaces have left the core of Toronto and other bigger cities for places like that.

Of course BC also has severe physical constraints that affect all this. Not sure what the story is with Winnipeg though.
 
David A said:
This all makes sense, like here quite a bit of warehouse and industrial in Mississauga and probably Brampton too. Lot of the old industrial spaces have left the core of Toronto and other bigger cities for places like that.

Of course BC also has severe physical constraints that affect all this. Not sure what the story is with Winnipeg though.
Click to expand...
Mississauga and Brampton are actually relatively small, compared to Edmonton or Calgary, in terms of land area, and they have a net total of industrial area that is also smaller, but proportionally higher. Burnaby is just incredibly small in area, due to the constraints you mentioned, which obviously makes its density skyrocket.

Winnipeg is simply much more sprawled than all of these cities. Bigger land area than Brampton and Mississauga, with a slightly smaller population (note, we are talking about city proper here, not Metro areas).

All that said, I would not be surprised if Edmonton and Calgary reached densities closer to, or even surpassed, Brampton and Mississauga within the next decade or so.
 
Ian, did you go “Bild’s” Tour yesterday? Curious, this picture of Station Lands looks “different?”
IMG_2854.png
 
Oh ok...fair enough......appeared that the middle 2 towers were somehow "forefront and highlighted" differently.....thanks!
 
If the rendering was accurate enough to go by (and it almost never is) then the tower that we have been waiting for is 37 storeys including the existing base
 
I was just down Alberta Ave Monday evening and I was shocked at how vibrant it's looking compared to two years ago. Lots of new small business storefronts on the go and a few building renovations, plus the trees are growing large, completing the welcoming look.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Crudely made and subjective map of where I think are the best central-ish areas to buy. Open to getting roasted for how wrong I am.

View attachment 674986
Click to expand...
I think the lower-priced central areas are a better buy long-term. Not sure if you'll see more appreciation in the price of a $1M house in Crestwood relative to a $300,000 house in Alberta Avenue, plus the pool of potential buyers for the $1M house will be much smaller than the $300,000 one.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Crudely made and subjective map of where I think are the best central-ish areas to buy. Open to getting roasted for how wrong I am.

View attachment 674986
Click to expand...
Central McDougall yellow while Meadowlark is red is brazy

Otherwise mostly agreed. Only change I'd make is a big fat red strip along 107 ave east from the graveyard.

(also curious on why Dovercourt was added just to shit on it 🤣)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top