This is Where You Lived in 2006
New condo tower in fast-growing downtown Vancouver
The first round of data from Canada’s 2006 census was released yesterday morning; we now have an accurate update of city population trends across the country. (We’ll still have to wait for the juicier data on income, education, language, race, and immigration, however. They will be released at regular intervals over the next year.) Are there any surprises? No, not really. The cities we already knew were growing are indeed growing; the cities we already knew were stagnating or declining are doing just that, too. But, as always, the real story is in the details.
First, the broad sweep of things: Canada as a whole grew by 5.4 percent between 2001 and 2006, making it the fastest-growing G8 country. (By comparison, the United States grew by 5 percent, Japan grew by just 0.4 percent and Germany didn’t grow at all.) What makes this even more interesting is that two-thirds of Canada’s population growth comes from immigration; in the more fertile United States, most of it comes from natural increase.
Within the country, Toronto’s suburbs and exurbs are growing like crazy, as is almost every town and city in Alberta. Brampton, a suburb of Toronto, grew by a remarkable 33.3 percent as its population rose from 325,428 to 433,806. (Future data releases will probably reveal that most of this growth comes from international migration—from South Asia in particular.) That’s nothing compared to Okotoks, however: the town just south of Calgary posted a growth rate of 46.7 percent. Greater Calgary as a whole, meanwhile, grew by 13.4 percent, its population rocketing to nearly 1,100,000. Ottawa, watch out!
So what’s happening on the local level? Within Canada’s metropolitan areas, the census reveals that suburban municipalities grew by an average of 11.1 percent while central municipalities grew by an average of 4.2 percent. Generally speaking, urban growth in Canada is taking the form of a doughnut, but not in the way you’d expect. In all of the big cities, fast-growing suburban areas form a ring around the edge of the metropolitan area, while inner-city areas are growing almost as quickly. Older suburbs, meanwhile, aren’t growing much at all. You can see this trend quite clearly in the growth map for Calgary: since 2001, inner-city neighbourhoods have grown in population, often by more than 10 percent, while the inner suburbs around them stagnated or declined in population. In a mirror image of the inner city, the areas on Calgary’s extremities all posted growth rates of more than 10 percent.
The same trend can be seen in Toronto, with heavy growth downtown, stagnation or decline in many established areas and massive growth on the edges of the big 905 suburbs. In Vancouver, growth is more evenly dispersed throughout the metropolitan area, perhaps because infill development has been so abundance in nearly every neighbourhood. The impact of new brownfield residential development is especially evident in the downtown peninsula, New Westminster, central Richmond and Metrotown, all of which have witnessed impressive population gains.
First- and second-generation suburbs, like this one in Calgary, are stagnating or declining.
The media are reporting that Montreal is growing a bit slower than the national average, but this is misleading. The metropolitan area as a whole has grown by 5.3 percent (the national average), to 3,635,571, while the population of Montreal Island grew by 2.3 percent to 1,854,442, which compares favourably to the City of Toronto, which grew by just 0.9 percent.
The parts of inner-city Montreal that are growing are a bit unexpected. The Plateau, thanks all of the condo construction that has occurred over the past several years, posted modest gains. Old Montreal and adjacent areas saw their population increase by more than 10 percent. What’s most noteworthy, though, is the growth that has occurred in the city’s southwest, in the neighbourhoods along the Lachine Canal. Ever single part of St. Henri, Little Burgundy, Point St. Charles or eastern Verdun saw its population grow, even though these were the neighbourhoods that were hardest hit by deindustrialization and population loss in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. In fact, many sections of these districts grew by more than 10 percent. My guess is that this boom has been caused not just by gentrification but also by immigration: even as new condos are built, immigrant families from South Asia, the Caribbean and China have been settling here. We’ll see if I’m right when more census data is released later this year.
In the meantime, peruse this latest population release yourself at Statistics Canada.
Tags: Montreal
Nick Wellington says:
Keep in mind that many of the cities might have experienced significant undercount. Ottawa proper for example is estimated by city staff to be off by rougly 30000 people. Toronto is likely undercounted by at least that many, if not more. It’s hard to imagine that with all of the condo growth and infill development Toronto proper only grew 20000 in 5 years. We’ll have to wait until 2008 when the figures are revised to see the true picture.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Christopher DeWolf says:
Well, the undercount varies from place to place. Cities with transient populations (lots of students and other non-permanent residents) are particularly impacted. It definitely doesn’t make sense that Toronto would have grown so slowly.
Generally speaking, though, these numbers are fairly accurate.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
fever says:
Is there more detailed data available than municipal populations? University students?
While Vancouver City grew at 5.9%, the majority of this growth had to have occurred on the downtown peninsula and other central areas. I wouldn’t be surprised if Vancouver south of 16th Ave lost population due to the aging population.
This same pattern can be seen in North Vancouver, which is divided into urban and suburban municipalities. I think the same pattern would be repeated in Burnaby around Metrotown and Brentwood and in Richmond, but it would be absent from Surrey, Langley, and Abbotsford.
Maybe not. I’m surprised that Delta’s population decreased.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Christopher DeWolf says:
With a university VPN you should be able to access census tract data on E-Stat.
In the Vancouver map I linked to, which show the general population trends per census tract, you can see there was decline only in the upper part of East Vancouver and some areas right in the geographic centre of the city (I guess that postwar bungalow belt). A few areas on the West Side like West Point Grey and Dunbar also declined. The rest of the city had pretty healthy growth, especially South Vancouver.
Here is the population growth by federal electoral district, which gives you a general idea of what’s happening.
Vancouver Centre: 16.7%
Vancouver East: (0.6%)
Vancouver Kingsway: 3.9%
Vancouver Quadra: 5.9%
Vancouver South: 6.4%
As you can see, most of Vancouver grew while the downtown peninsula and adjacent areas had suburban boomtown levels of growth.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
fever says:
Ah. Thank you. I didn’t realize that the links were maps – they’re what I was looking for.
The decline was mostly in the post-war bungalow belt but it includes Shaughnessy as well. Awkward that the city’s transit hub is in the middle of four declining census tracts.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Desmond Bliek says:
Chris,
Interesting interpretation of the recent census data. It’s true that sw Montreal is undergoing some really important changes, but as you point out, these are the areas that were previously hardest hit by deindustrialisation and depopulation. It strikes me that, since they fell the furthest, any gains we’re now seeing are going to appear proportionately greater.
The map (and your comments) on Calgary show some big problems: most of Canada’s fastest growing city is actually shrinking! This is troubling because it’s where all of the infrastructure (schools, transit, roads, etc) is. It’d be interesting to take a look at what’s keeping these sorts of neighbourhoods from growing. Certainly demographic factors (kids leaving the house, smaller families, etc.) are having an impact in these areas, but it would be interesting to explore why upzoning and densification aren’t really taking place in any significant way.
Cheers,
Des
March 25th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Christopher DeWolf says:
You’re right about those demographic factors. These stagnant second- and third-generation suburbs are at the “empty nester” stage where kids have moved away but there hasn’t yet been a significant turnover in home ownership. I think that if you look at the actual data, and not just the map, the declines will be fairly minimal. After all, the maps I linked to show only broad trends—a 0.1% decline in population looks the same as a 9.9% decline.
Speaking anecdotally, my parents live in a suburb that was mostly developed in the 1970s and early 1980s. In four of the six adjacent houses, parents live alone—their grown children have moved away. In one of the houses there is a young family and in another there is a young childless couple who recently replaced a pair of empty-nesters. I assume that they plan on having kids (why else buy such a big house?) and I wouldn’t be surprised if in five years many of the other empty-nester neighbours have moved away and been replaced by young families.
As for densification, I think most of the demand for new housing has been filled either by the inner city (new condos, townhouses, single-family infill) and outer suburbs (which are usually denser than suburbs built in previous decades). But you can definitely see densification starting to occur. There are three condo towers currently under construction across from Westbrook Mall, on top of a future LRT station that will be built in several years.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:48 pm