1511 replies to this topic

[aastra]

We've talked a lot about the political advantages of having a larger population. So consider the numbers (2006 census) for various Canadian metropolitan areas:

Victoria
population: 330,000
area (square KM): 695
density (per square KM): 475

Vancouver
population: 2,117,000
area (square KM): 2,877
density (per square KM): 736

Kelowna
population: 162,000
area (square KM): 2,904
density (per square KM): 56

Calgary
population: 1,078,000
area (square KM): 5,107
density (per square KM): 211

Edmonton
population: 1,035,000
area (square KM): 9,418
density (per square KM): 110

Saskatoon
population: 234,000
area (square KM): 5,207
density (per square KM): 45

Regina
population: 195,000
area (square KM): 3,408
density (per square KM): 57

Winnipeg
population: 694,670
area (square KM): 5,303
density (per square KM): 131

Ottawa-Gatineau
population: 1,131,000
area (square KM): 5,716
density (per square KM): 198

...and so forth.

In terms of total population, Victoria ranks 15th out of 33 metro areas, but ranks 31st out of 33 in physical size, and thus ranks 6th out of 33 in density. Something's not right with that picture. Apples and oranges.

Victoria's metro area is artificially small, which translates into:

- a lower total population than if more far-flung areas were included, and
- a lower potential for sheer growth (and the impression of sheer growth) since far-flung areas are not included

All the time on sites like Skyscraperpage.com you'll see Canadians trying to "pad the fat" by tacking absurdly distant communities onto their respective metro areas. In Victoria's case, there's no fat at all. Many legitimate suburbs aren't even included.

In Greater Victoria, if your commute exceeds 20 KM then you're actually not commuting in Greater Victoria at all, even though there isn't another downtown anywhere in the region. Whereas commutes of 100 KM and more are par-for-the-course in just about every other Canadian metro area.

[gumgum]

Kelowna's lack of density is pathetic.

[victorian fan]

Out immigration stats have fallen recently.

[Mike K.]

In Greater Victoria, if your commute exceeds 20 KM then you're actually not commuting in Greater Victoria at all, even though there isn't another downtown anywhere in the region. Whereas commutes of 100 KM and more are par-for-the-course in just about every other Canadian metro area.

Halifax, by comparison, envelopes an area of over 5,000 sq. km. and has an amalgamated population of 400,000, and its politicians sit at the table with the big boys. The metropolitan area of Victoria, shy of 700 sq. km. and with 13 population silos to boot (with the biggest hovering around 115,000), isn't privy to join in on a variety of discussions and/or financial benefits that it ought to be a part of.

And on another note, I don't understand why the province does not readjust the political boundaries of the south Island. I find it hard to believe that Shawnigan Lake or Malahat have more ties to the Cowichan Valley than to Victoria. At one point that may have been the case but in the past 20-odd years both communities have been almost completely reliant on the CRD for employment et al.

[victorian fan]

As I recall, Victoria's population was about 50,000 in the 1950s.

[aastra]

City population, yes. Metro was 122K in 1951 and 142K in 1956:

http://www.bcstats.g...ut/hist_cen.pdf

[manuel]

From the CRD methods page http://crd.bc.ca/reg.../POPGROW_09.pdf : "The model used ... .... is based on issuance of building permits for residential structures by municipalities in the CRD." "It is important to note that it is assumed for the purposes of this model that all Building Permits result in completed and occupied dwellings within the time frame of the estimate."

Similar methods have led to high overestimates in the U.S. (such as Phoenix) and can completely miss changes from in-flow of residents to outflow Good to see the warnings on the methods here.

[G-Man]

I wondered how it was calculated. That said Victoria does not suffer from a huge amount of empty or foreclosed homes.

[G-Man]

Also I haveoften wonderedwhat the total transient population is a any given time of the year. How "big" does Victoria get in the summer months?

[Phil McAvity]

While the case has been made for amalgamation (and a good one at that), at least we aren't Portland Maine: population 62 561 in city and 619 917 in metro.

Just try to imagine how badly they need amalgamation.

[manuel]

I wondered how it was calculated. That said Victoria does not suffer from a huge amount of empty or foreclosed homes.

G-Man - with the type of extrapolation used, what will be important is any change in the relative amount of empty homes and apartments from 2006 to now. What interests me most is how many people are actually living in a building like Bayview. When past last night at 8:30 p.m. and on the north-east face there were only 6 condos with lights on out of probably 30.

Anyone been in their parking lot to see how many cars are actually there?

[VicHockeyFan]

While the case has been made for amalgamation (and a good one at that), at least we aren't Portland Maine: population 62 561 in city and 619 917 in metro.

Just try to imagine how badly they need amalgamation.

A quick search fails to come up with anyone there talking about it. They have over 500k in just three counties that include Portland, so maybe it's not that big a deal. ie. their 500k with 3 jurisdictions, vs. our 350k with 13.

[G-Man]

G-Man - with the type of extrapolation used, what will be important is any change in the relative amount of empty homes and apartments from 2006 to now. What interests me most is how many people are actually living in a building like Bayview. When past last night at 8:30 p.m. and on the north-east face there were only 6 condos with lights on out of probably 30.

Anyone been in their parking lot to see how many cars are actually there?

I think the empty highrise myth has been disproved on this forum especially when people base it on lights on. I mean you can go by View Towers at 8:30 and only about a third of lights are on.

[newostar]

Out immigration stats have fallen recently.

Wait, didn't 100% of us immigrate before 1991?

[manuel]

I think the empty highrise myth has been disproved on this forum especially when people base it on lights on. I mean you can go by View Towers at 8:30 and only about a third of lights are on.

True. Could normalize the %occupancy of a new condo by comparing the relative number of lights on at the same time to a place like View Towers.

[Caramia]

Even then, it doesn't really work out. A low income building like View Towers will be more likely to have people at home, poorer people being less likely to take vacations, less likely to go out to dinner or to a game/theater, more likely to entertain their friends in their own homes. You'd have to compare it with a building with a similar income and lifestyle demographic.

[aastra]

There's no way HWY1/Craigflower can sustain a population of 150,000+ on the west shore.

Remind me, when are we expecting that? 100 years from now?

[Mike K.]

According to the CRD the west shore will have a population of over 110,000 in 16 years. By 2035 they won't be far off from 150,000, which is nearly three times the current population.

A single highway that is already congested and a two-lane road won't be able to sustain that large of a population.

And as for the theory that more people will begin to work elsewhere in the region and downtown's dominance will diminish, that's nonsense. Look at how many years it's taken to build up UVic and it's daily draw pales in comparison to downtown's. A major commercial/residential/retail node that's on the scale of and has the diversity of downtown Victoria won't happen until the next century.

[aastra]

If those predictions pan out then I'm fully prepared to buy you an entire box of donuts.

By the way, did you notice your CRD estimates there put Victoria city at less than 85,000 by 2026? That would seem to clash with your prediction on the bridge thread when we were talking about the short-term future population of Vic West. And it also clashes with the city of Victoria's predictions for tens of thousands of new residents downtown in short order.

Everybody's just throwing numbers around.

[Mike K.]

By the way, did you notice your CRD estimates there put Victoria city at less than 85,000 by 2026? That would seem to clash with your prediction on the bridge thread when we were talking about the short-term future population of Vic West. And it also clashes with the city of Victoria's predictions for tens of thousands of new residents downtown in short order..

I think you have me mistaken with someone else.