Subscribe
It is a list of the densest downtowns in Canada (people per square kilometer). But to be more precise, it is a list of the densest primary downtowns for each census metropolitan area.
In the case of Toronto, for instance, it considers downtown Toronto, but it does not consider downtown Mississauga, downtown Brampton, or any other "downtowns" across the CMA. And in the case of Vancouver, it ignores important centers such as Burnaby.
Many were quick to point this out on Twitter and it is a fair comment. Our cities are often more polycentric than a chart like this might make it seem.
The other thing to consider is that these density numbers are dependent on what you assume as the boundary for each downtown. For downtown Vancouver it's a fair bit easier because it is a peninsula surrounded by water.
But for downtown Toronto, it's more nebulous. Where do you draw the line? In this case, Statistics Canada is using the same downtown boundary as what's in our Official Plan, but that happens to include the lower-density University of Toronto lands. So are we comparing apples to apples?
I don't know. But go Hamilton!
Jeffrey Lin, who is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, recently published the following chart:
I found it in
Recent US Census Bureau data has once again confirmed that there’s a growing preference for living in urban cores. More specifically:
It finds that population growth has been shifting to the core counties of the USA’s 381 metro areas, especially since the economic recovery began gaining steam in 2010. Basically, the USA’s urban core is getting denser, while far-flung suburbs watch their growth dwindle.
To put numbers to these statements, core counties in the US grew approximately 2.7% and outlying counties grew approximately 1.9% from 2010-2013. Most of the growth came from net migration, as opposed to higher birth rates.
The two big factors at play–which will be obvious to readers of this blog–appear to be both a desire to live in amenity rich and walkable communities and a continuing trend towards marrying and having kids later in life, which can often be the trigger for moving to the suburbs.
But the big question is whether or not this trend is here to stay or if it’s an ephemeral fad caused by a bunch of over-educated and under-employed Millennials refusing to grow up. I would argue that it’s not a fad.
If there’s a clear consumer preference for urban neighborhoods, then I don’t think people are just going to pick up and leave overnight. As long as there’s adequate housing within the means of growing families, I think they’re going to stay in or go to the areas in which they truly want to live.
There are also many other macroeconomic trends reinforcing this shift. Just yesterday, Richard Florida wrote an article in Atlantic Cities talking about how venture capital investment is shifting away from the suburbs, towards city centers and walkable communities. These companies (receiving investment) are the next generation of employers and they’re starting in core areas.
I’ll take that as a leading indicator.
It is a list of the densest downtowns in Canada (people per square kilometer). But to be more precise, it is a list of the densest primary downtowns for each census metropolitan area.
In the case of Toronto, for instance, it considers downtown Toronto, but it does not consider downtown Mississauga, downtown Brampton, or any other "downtowns" across the CMA. And in the case of Vancouver, it ignores important centers such as Burnaby.
Many were quick to point this out on Twitter and it is a fair comment. Our cities are often more polycentric than a chart like this might make it seem.
The other thing to consider is that these density numbers are dependent on what you assume as the boundary for each downtown. For downtown Vancouver it's a fair bit easier because it is a peninsula surrounded by water.
But for downtown Toronto, it's more nebulous. Where do you draw the line? In this case, Statistics Canada is using the same downtown boundary as what's in our Official Plan, but that happens to include the lower-density University of Toronto lands. So are we comparing apples to apples?
I don't know. But go Hamilton!
Jeffrey Lin, who is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, recently published the following chart:
I found it in
Recent US Census Bureau data has once again confirmed that there’s a growing preference for living in urban cores. More specifically:
It finds that population growth has been shifting to the core counties of the USA’s 381 metro areas, especially since the economic recovery began gaining steam in 2010. Basically, the USA’s urban core is getting denser, while far-flung suburbs watch their growth dwindle.
To put numbers to these statements, core counties in the US grew approximately 2.7% and outlying counties grew approximately 1.9% from 2010-2013. Most of the growth came from net migration, as opposed to higher birth rates.
The two big factors at play–which will be obvious to readers of this blog–appear to be both a desire to live in amenity rich and walkable communities and a continuing trend towards marrying and having kids later in life, which can often be the trigger for moving to the suburbs.
But the big question is whether or not this trend is here to stay or if it’s an ephemeral fad caused by a bunch of over-educated and under-employed Millennials refusing to grow up. I would argue that it’s not a fad.
If there’s a clear consumer preference for urban neighborhoods, then I don’t think people are just going to pick up and leave overnight. As long as there’s adequate housing within the means of growing families, I think they’re going to stay in or go to the areas in which they truly want to live.
There are also many other macroeconomic trends reinforcing this shift. Just yesterday, Richard Florida wrote an article in Atlantic Cities talking about how venture capital investment is shifting away from the suburbs, towards city centers and walkable communities. These companies (receiving investment) are the next generation of employers and they’re starting in core areas.
I’ll take that as a leading indicator.
The chart compares the socioeconomic status in US cities (y-axis) against “distance from city center” (x-axis) in 1880 and then in recent years (1960 to 2010 census data). The orange circles represent the 1880 data and the red and blue lines represent the recent census data.
What this chart and research tells us is that in 1880, rich people overwhelmingly lived in the center of cities. And as you moved further away from the city center, socioeconomic status fell off pretty precipitously. This makes sense given that, at the time, it was hard to get around and travel long distances.
However, in the post-war years, the exact opposite became true. We began driving and wealth decentralized. This should surprise no one.
But what’s interesting is how this appears to be reversing. In 2010 (the red line), there’s a sharp increase in socioeconomic status for people living basically right in the center of cities. And for the 30 - 60 km range, there has been a decrease in socioeconomic status essentially from the 1960s onwards.
The important takeaway here – which is spelled out in the Washington Post article – is that the neighborhoods which appear to be in high demand today are also in very short supply:
“We have 80 years of essentially zero production of neighborhoods with these qualities,” Grant says. “We’ve spent the last 80 years building car-oriented suburbs. Then when the elites decide they want to go back into the city, there’s not enough city to go around.”
This is one reason why supply matters.
The chart compares the socioeconomic status in US cities (y-axis) against “distance from city center” (x-axis) in 1880 and then in recent years (1960 to 2010 census data). The orange circles represent the 1880 data and the red and blue lines represent the recent census data.
What this chart and research tells us is that in 1880, rich people overwhelmingly lived in the center of cities. And as you moved further away from the city center, socioeconomic status fell off pretty precipitously. This makes sense given that, at the time, it was hard to get around and travel long distances.
However, in the post-war years, the exact opposite became true. We began driving and wealth decentralized. This should surprise no one.
But what’s interesting is how this appears to be reversing. In 2010 (the red line), there’s a sharp increase in socioeconomic status for people living basically right in the center of cities. And for the 30 - 60 km range, there has been a decrease in socioeconomic status essentially from the 1960s onwards.
The important takeaway here – which is spelled out in the Washington Post article – is that the neighborhoods which appear to be in high demand today are also in very short supply:
“We have 80 years of essentially zero production of neighborhoods with these qualities,” Grant says. “We’ve spent the last 80 years building car-oriented suburbs. Then when the elites decide they want to go back into the city, there’s not enough city to go around.”
This is one reason why supply matters.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog