3,000 new residents pad Victoria’s 2009 population estimate
Victoria’s metropolitan population grew by 3,071 individuals between June 01, 2008 and June 01, 2009, according to figures released by the Capital Regional District (CRD). The last official Census of Canada, undertaken in 2006, tabbed the CRD’s population at 345,164 (the CRD includes Salt Spring Island, Port Renfrew and other Gulf Islands), with 330,088 residents living in the Victoria Metropolitan Area (VMA), the area between Sooke on the westshore and North Saanich on the peninsula. The new estimate, based off of a “headcount” from the 2006 Census with a 2.9% undercount, pegged the CRD’s population at 369,791 and the VMA’s population at 353,928, representing a growth of roughly 1% over 2008’s estimate. The westshore communities of Colwood, Highlands, Langford, Metchosin and Sooke once again outpaced the growth of other areas of the region, absorbing 2,023 of new residents, or 66% of total growth.
In recent years there has been debate over other south Island communities eyed for the VMA’s population count. Communities currently part of the Cowichan Valley Regional District’s (CVRD) population, such as Shawnigan Lake, Malahat, Mill Bay, and Cobble Hill, increasingly rely on the VMA for employment, education, shopping and entertainment, due in part by the draw of more affordable real-estate. Employment figures from the 2006 Census of Canada show that among several CVRD communities over 50% of working residents commute daily to the VMA for employment, making them candidates for population planning in the VMA. The new commuter service launched by BC Transit connecting communities as far north as Duncan with downtown Victoria is an example of the growth in interconnectedness between Victoria and CVRD communities.
For full 2009 estimate figures for all VMA municipalities, refer to this document. For a discussion on Victoria’s population, please refer to this thread in the discussion forum. You may also be interested in the forum’s Victoria Regional Transit thread and the municipal amalgamation thread.
Copyright © 2009 by VibrantVictoria.ca. All rights reserved.
Responses to this Headline or Article
The five most recent replies to VibrantVictoria.ca's discussion forum's Victoria Population Discussion thread, the most relevant thread to the above headline or article:
jonnyNov 08, 2013 at 9:14 am
Quote: ^I think each person moving in is a net loss to the city, i.e. they cost more to service than they pay in taxes.
I don't think this could possibly be true for Victoria, which on an average day does not experience much crime, congestion, or really any of the costly negative externalities of large cities.
At a certain point, I think you could be right, but Victoria is nowhere near that point on the demand curve.
High population cities require massive infrastructure investments in terms of utilities, freeways, subways, LRTs, stadiums, massive police forces, airports, hospitals and schools, etc.
Our streets are not full. We have almost zero congestion. IMO the City of Victoria could handle double the amount of people with most of our existing infrastructure. I don't think you'd be able to notice by walking around and I would be shocked if it would require massive investment on behalf of the City.
James Bay walkerNov 08, 2013 at 9:24 am
Quote: At a certain point, I think you could be right, but Victoria is nowhere near that point on the demand curve.Water supply has been nip & tuck at times with the present population, and I don't think the reservoir has much added potential for expansion, so a serious increase in population means expanding through going further afield to add a source of potable water.
While it's tempting for the sake of squeezing every dollar's potential out of every square foot of land to be 'pro' development for the sake of the "highest" use of land, quality of life counts too (or should). The social costs of being unable to manage overcrowding are not inconsequential.
To think otherwise is to risk behaving like frogs sitting comfortably in a pan of barely warm water set to simmer on a stovetop: we become used to the status quo of gradual development, and oblivious to our fate of not especially noticing that the heat is slowly becoming enough to cook us.
LJNov 08, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Quote: High population cities require massive infrastructure investments in terms of utilities, freeways, subways, LRTs, stadiums, massive police forces, airports, hospitals and schools, etc.
And rinks and pools and playgrounds and parks etc. etc. Without some sort of industrial or business income, taxes would be incredibly high, or, you would do without the services.
I think the best scenario Victoria has going for it is the large number of condos that are owned by people who live elsewhere and sit vacant. Tax revenue without demanding any services.
LJNov 08, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Anyone play Thor?
"Taxes are your most important source of income. Balancing Taxes so that you get the most out of your population while letting them upgrade to higher levels is a crucial part of gameplay. The goal is to bring in enough tax revenue that you can pay for all your civilization's costs such as building maintainence and ships, and possibly even have a surplus to avoid going into Debt.
The amount of money generated in taxes is closely related to your Population's Food, Drink, Lifestyle, Community, Activity, Information, and Participation Needs, the Goods required to fulfill these Needs, the automatic or manual Ascension Rights of your Residents, and your Population size and ratio of different Residence levels.
Taxation is the balancing of your population's satisfaction against how much money they pay you."
LJNov 08, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Someone want to plough through this?