Finally, can we pleeeease stop with the ill-thought-out observations that Vancouver is not growing as fast as Surrey, Richmond and Burnaby. Of course it’s not. Because it’s starting with a much bigger base popuation for one

You can say the same about Edmonton and Calgary (both being trumpeted in the press). Smaller pops to start with, so larger % can be misleading. As the Statscan site notes Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver account for 35% of the nation’s total population.

BC Stats has an explanation of why number might be different:

Why does Census population differ from estimates in Census years?

In Canada, a Census of the population is undertaken every five years. While the objective of this exercise is to count everybody in the country, in reality some people are inevitably missed and in some cases, people get counted more than once. Statistics Canada conducts a number of post-censal surveys to develop an estimate of the net difference between those who were missed and those who were counted more than once and this net undercount (typically more people are missed than over counted) is then applied to the Census population to develop an estimate of the overall population. The estimate is also adjusted for the timing difference between the population on Census day (mid-May) and the estimates reference date of July 1.

Greenfield development still trumps densification.

Key.

Three points:
– all the major cities in Canada, except those in BC, are amalgamations of the core and most of their suburbs. The most recent amalgamations took place in Halifax (1996), Toronto (1998) and Montreal (2002), when the Provincial governments forced them. All of which makes it difficult to compare data between “cities”. Really shows up when comparing crime rates , demographics, taxes, basically anything where there’s significant differences between the core and suburbs.
– with all the previous discussion about affordability, I wonder why no one’s making the obvious link between the increased demand for housing caused by all these folk in the rest of Canada wanting to move here, and Vancouver’s limited ability to supply sufficient amounts of the desired housing – a phenomenon that usually increases costs. This sort of raises the obvious solution to he affordability issue – just make Vancouver a much less desireable place to live. — and the obvious link between the rapid growth in the suburbs where it is still possible to get the desired affordable single family houses and the billion dollar transportation projects to get residents into the jobs and services in the core areas. Arguably, these billions could be better used to make make Vancouver a much nicer place to live, but then then it would be even more desireable, and affordability would be even more of a problem.

Thought of The Day

“Vancouver City is a Housing Affordability Stroke sufferer.”

When dealing with a stroke sufferer, you are faced with two choices … and none of them are good.

The question is… will Vancouver be able to recover from it? And if yes, than, what if… it is left with a mental disability side effect?

Vancouver of today, reminds me of Elvis.
You know… that guy!
Pump up a normal guy with vicious drugs, and what do you get? An overinflated ego, 200 extra pounds, and a lovely heart attack/stroke combo!

This city has got all the bad signs that points out to The King:

Weakness in the Local Administration and Government.
Trouble Speaking in Real Terms and Making Sense What-So-Ever.
VisionProblems (LOL, you can’t make this one up folks!)
A big, big, big City Managerial Headache.
Dizziness, a sudden loss of balance, associated with an Inner Ear Infection, from the years of neglect and mostly from… No Listening!

A city that suffered a massive stroke, has no need to grow fast, no need to be pumped up artificially with life sustaining bylaws/ guidelines/conferences/ summits/symposiums , no need to be fed BS stories of future wealth and greenness unless it has the capability to “afford”it altogether .

Sometimes, I have the feeling that the only thing all these advances in technology & know-how of the past 100 years. did for us, is that now, we can agonize over mundane things a bit longer.

In 2008 it was The Mayor’s WE Advisory Committee.
2011 brought us The Mayor’s Task Force!

Are-You-Kidding-Me?
Are-The-People-Of-Vancouver-That-Stupid?
Ahem-Yes-I-Think-They-Are!

A Task Force Made Up Of “All Experts” (BTW everyone is an expert, when they have no clue what they are taking about), an overwhelming majority of them, multimillionaires, with manicured backgrounds, living in waterfront houses, and now, ready to have a round table brainstorming, on… LOL, housing affordability, sheltering the… homeless and… caring for the disadvantaged.
O Tempora, o Mores!
Cicero… must be turning in his grave.

Even the spelling is erroneous.
‘Cause, the “Task Force” should actually be spelled the “Task Farce”!

Is there a Housing Affordability “way out” for Vancouver?
Yes.
But only if the Task Farce starts their first meeting with this… ‘Dream’ on their Agenda:

From:
http://twitter.com/glissandoremmy

1st Dream Agenda 4 Z Housing Affordability #TaskForce
1)Persuade ALL House Millionares 2 Forfeit 50% Home Equity. Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized! 😀
1/3

1st Dream Agenda 4 Z Housing Affordability #TaskForce
2)Stop ALL Speculation Based Immigration Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized! 😀
2/3

1st Dream Agenda 4 Z Housing Affordability #TaskForce
3) Cut 50% Profits/ Wages/ Perks 2 Developers/ Design Teams/ City Staff Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized! 😀
3/3

There, I said it, you read it here first, one year before The Task Force will come to the same conclusion… “it can’t be done, unless, what… Glissando said…”

At least I’ve saved you, the taxpayers, from paying for a dozen crates of Dom Perignon and one kilo of Beluga KaVeeRrrr!
Because you know… Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized! 😀

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

@ Rick #6: “I wonder why no one’s making the obvious link between the increased demand for housing caused by all these folk in the rest of Canada wanting to move here, and Vancouver’s limited ability to supply sufficient amounts of the desired housing – a phenomenon that usually increases costs.”

Actually, if you go back to the commentary sections of those posts (and older ones) you’ll see the point was brought up by a few of us, including yours truly. It’s just that “foreign billionaires” buying up west side houses get all the press and occupy a huge amount of airtime on AM talk radio.

Moreover, the suburbs, where so-called “affordable” housing resides (there are many, many hidden costs and subsidies), are doing a better job at making themselves undesireable in one sense by building an L.A. style freeway. Nothing destroys a city and natural environment better than a freeway.

@ Lewis, I think there needs to be a distinction between increasing density and fostering better quality urban design. They may be linked, but only tangentially.

And I also believe we need to promote a plethora of “human-scaled” housing choices, not just one. We don’t need to box in what is possible in real world conditions.

Further, building communities is as much about the public realm (parks, streetscapes, plazas, habitat conservation areas, urban forest, commnuity centres, cultural + educational institutions, views, heritage …) as it is the private, while also elevating pedestrian spaces and different transit modes adapted to specific urban conditions above the car.

@ rick #6:

This sort of raises the obvious solution to he affordability issue – just make Vancouver a much less desireable place to live

Or make other places more desirable?

I do agree with your overall thesis that Vancouver is expensive because it’s a great place to live. Really, as far as Canadian cities go, there’s no competition between here and Toronto. If some of the prairie cities were more desirable, I think Vancouver prices would go down (or at least plateau).

@ MB #9: I strongly agree with this post!

I think there needs to be a distinction between increasing density and fostering better quality urban design… And I also believe we need to promote a plethora of “human-scaled” housing choices, not just one.

MB 10

I have summarized five characteristics of built form that you and I may agree foster “good urban design”, for two types of high density buildings which can build without land assembly:

http://wp.me/p1mj4z-yN

Skytrain and towers is a form of “density” that fails to provide the livability of human-scaled quartiers. However, as long as Greenfield development trumps densification, Skytrain is the better fit for suburban sprawl.

As to “… a plethora of “human-scaled” housing choices, not just one”, I think back to the recently announced Task Force, and worry about what’s coming.

Vancouver has built out using 3 building products/types:

1. The cottage, or Vancouver Special;

2. The 3-storey walk-up apartment (including bare land strata row houses; and

3. The hi-rise (tower or slab).

The plethora is in the details, not in the building types.

I see advantages to adding just one more type on the block that won’t make owners into payers of strata fees, and special assessments just because they buy into density. Or, when certain concrete and measurable characteristics are present, an urbanism far more responsive to human needs, social, physical and economic.

One thing to note about the population change graphs, is to compare to other cities.
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/geo/map-carte/ref/thematic-thematiques-eng.cfm

Look at Toronto and Calgary, for a start. If one went solely by that we might say that Calgary, Montreal, and Toronto have even more an infill problem than Vancouver.

How to use inner core land is not specific to Vancouver, albeit Vancouver faces more geographic hurdles than other locales.

Well this is the first of several results of the census
The Globe told us : “The Globe noted : “On May 29, Statistics Canada will release the second of its four census reports. It will break down the census information based on age and sex. Then data on families, households, marital status, and other dwelling information will come out on Sept. 19, followed by a final report on Oct. 24 dealing with language.”

Response rates for census, the second part, the Long Form or the Non-census or NHS National Household Survey will be about 70% but random, not keyed to any other standard and therefore a bunch of random numbers.
The compulsory headcount is much, much better http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/about-apropos/rates-taux-eng.cfm

I find it interesting that
“Les logements
Le nombre de logements privés occupés au Canada continue de croître à un rythme plus rapide que celui de la population du pays, une situation qui s’observe depuis 1971. Les logements privés occupés sont des pièces d’habitation distinctes ayant une entrée privée et occupées de façon permanente par des personnes.
Pendant que la population augmentait de 5,9 % entre 2006 et 2011, le nombre de logements privés occupés augmentait de 7,1 %. Le Recensement de 2011 a dénombré 13 320 614 logements privés occupés, comparativement à 12 435 520 cinq ans auparavant.”

So are more people living single, are there more dwellings with fewer people (or none)? We have to wait. Eventually we can get down to Block Face head counts and Dwellings, but the numbers will end in the 5s and 10s

Both the Globe and GlobAL had pretty maps with mildly differing graphic displays based on what I think is the Canadian Press data set
With the Open Data, a few Shape files and some R file scripts you can make your own quite simply.

Much more “interactive” than Statcan’s PDF files for greater Vancouver CMA
http://www.globalnews.ca/pages/topicNew.aspx?id=6442571728
Mapping the census, tract by tract

Globe used Canadian Press map data
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/census-2011-interactive-how-does-your-community-compare/article2326514/

And Surrey has a lot of apartment and housing growth. This release is only head counts and we can look back to 2006 and see how immigration of various types filled up Surrey’s population.
“Surrey
In 2011, Surrey (City) had 152,847 private dwellings occupied by usual residents. The change in private dwellings occupied by usual residents from 2006 was 16.5%. For Canada as a whole, the number of private dwellings occupied by usual residents increased 7.1%”
“Vancouver City
In 2011, Vancouver (City) had 264,573 private dwellings occupied by usual residents. The change in private dwellings occupied by usual residents from 2006 was 4.5%. ”

Re: Immigration “Between 1851 and 2001, natural increase was the main factor behind Canada’s population growth. The proportion of growth due to natural increase, however, has declined since the late 1960s. Since 2001, it has accounted for about one-third of population growth. This decrease was the result of two factors.
The first was a rapid decrease in fertility in the late 1960s and the 1970s and its fairly constant level since then.
The second factor was a steady rise in the number of deaths (Figure 3). This was due in part to the aging of the population (an increasingly large proportion of the population is in the more advanced ages where mortality is higher). It was also due to population growth. As a result, the numbers of births and deaths have converged since the end of the baby boom in Canada, and migratory increase has taken on an increasingly important role in recent Canadian population growth.”

Another factor in Surrey’s rise may be the new Port Mann Bridge Tolls.
A friend living in South Surrey who keeps diligent accounts estimates that it will cost about $473 a month to take the long, often delayed drive to Vancouver for a soulless job and outdoor parking. Average wage in Vancouver for 2008 was $44,000 gross so this is a bite out of pocket.
Why not find work South of The Fraser instead.
Some people come in early by 6 am, so that they can leave early as well and avoid the tie-ups. Brutal.

There’s a StatsCan chat time in Eastern Time (good luck getting on, but they will try to answer lots even after off line. “All questions that remain unanswered at the end of the session will be answered by email in the following business days” )
“Chat session on population counts and growth, 2011 Census
Monday, February 13, 2012, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/Forum/Index-eng.cfm?WT.mc_id=twtZ0324
This chat session is about population counts and trends, and the distribution of the population across Canada. Additional information on this topic is available on the 2011 Census Population and Dwelling Counts Web page.
Meet the expert : Laurent Martel is a demography expert at Statistics Canada. Read more…
Check out this video,[ link ] which features Laurent presenting the highlights of the release. “

@ David 13

I agree with your analysis. I wonder if the distinction we have to draw now is between places that have no more Greenfield, and no Skytrain; and the places that have either one, or both.

Vancouver is out of Greenfield. I shudder at the prospect of building Skytrain on Broadway, but I don’t rule it out…

The question I face everyday is whether or not that makes Van City the place to innovate and develop through densification, rather than sprawl, or the place that will develop using the sprawl equivalent—towers.

My hunch is that the final decision may be up to the neighbourhoods—should they manage to organize a grass-roots vision in time, and beat the odds makers.

As per the old Chinese curse, we are living exciting times.

@ Bill Lee #18: “The first was a rapid decrease in fertility in the late 1960s and the 1970s and its fairly constant level since then.”

It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to see that the late 50s and early 60s was the horniest decade in our history. This period coincided with the mass injection of hormones into meat products, and with the appearance of large cars with back seats and radios flooded first with Elvis, then with Beatles music.

Scientific studies have shown that the Disco Decade dulled human senses with music containing repetitive, overly simplistic rythyms and melodies, and regressive design where lovemaking on stiff orange shag rugs in need of Deep Cleaning, especially when high in front of others, became an exercise requiring too much concentration.

Hence, excuses and lower birth rates.

We need to examine the real stories behind the numbers.

@Morry // Feb 8, 2012 at 11:19 pm

See http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/ref/about-apropos/rates-taux-eng.cfm
British Columbia 97.6% Response Rate

Very good. The non-census National Household Survey (of random numbers) will be about 70%.

So 2.4% of 650,000 = 15,600, but since it is filled in by housholds, maybe 5,000 didn’t fill it in.
I would think that of the 4.4 million in B.C. in 1,945,365 residences (1,764,637 in “usual residents,” i.e. not moving) that non-city people might have been more likely not to fill it in or not be called back. See the Manitoba number.

@MB #22,

I am honestly unable to tell whether you are serious or joking, but, in either case, I found your post to be very amusing.

Bravo.

Pretty hard for enumerators to reach “residents” in Shanghai.

@ Bill. Good one! LOL! Rolling in the aisle!

Will your brother gman attempt to crack us up too?

Regarding the 630k vs. 603k discrepancy: My first thought is that one factor may be many people living in unregistered basement suites or otherwise without their own address not receiving census forms or not being reported by their landlords.

@ Samis 31 and Jesse 15:

“Vancouver and Burnaby, at the locus of the region, need to do some significant navel gazing about how to relieve pressure on the region.

“And look, even the past decade aside, prices have been signalling that more density is necessary and that the City is tiptoeing around this to “preserve neighbourhood character” does a disservice to the entire region and the environment.”

You’ve focused on the ‘core’ of the real population discussion: to grow or not to grow, or if so by how much and how?

Should not both Metro and Vancouver be having inclusive, citywide conversations about population and grow to decide how much we want to have and what effect that will have on things like our quality of life, the environment and real estate prices among others?

Councillor Carr is putting forward today another motion to get the Planning Department (read Ms. Ballem) to come up with the available existing zoning capacity figures Councillor Woodsworth was promised last year.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the present City approach is that they’d rather negotiate backroom deals and get illegal CACs than encourage development on zoned land. This inevitably yields another tower, Lewis’ favourite housing form, whether the neighbourhood needs it or not.

If this approach is projected indefinitely and the assumption is maintained that growth is good, the result will be a tower, not a laneway house in everyone’s back yard.

This is not a good way to be ‘planning’ our City or Metro. I also question whether creating all this density is going to lower real estate prices when there are more people from around the globe who want to come here every year than we are able to build housing to accommodate.

We are at the point where we must make key decisions about what kind of place we want to be, but this is not happening. Step one in a neighbourhood focused planning process must be that City/Metro wide conversation about population and grow, how much and our quality of life, the environment and real estate prices.