Toronto Parks

[nfitz]

But why would you compare the current City of Vancouver to the old City of Toronto? Just because it favours your stance?

No, because you discussing density of urban area (presumably not artificial political units).

So, take an area of say 30 square blocks of downtown Vancouver and compare to same of Toronto.

Or take an area of X metres² of Vancouver and compare to Toronto.

How about this. I haven't checked the number to see what happens. Take the most downtown Vancouver federal electoral riding and compare that to the most downtown Toronto electoral riding. I'd guess Toronto would be ahead. Then look at the next densest, etc. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal beats Toronto, as it traditionally WAS denser than Toronto, before the condo boom.

I'll leave that for you, as en exercise to show that Vancouver's density is bigger (or smaller), if you are serious. Or to explain to us why your previous comparison is more realistic, if your just trolling us.

 

[King of Kensington]

The Old City of Toronto has a land area of 97 sq. km and a population density of 7,584 per sq. km, far ahead of Vancouver.

If we add up Vancouver's 2 densest and most "urban" suburbs, Burnaby and New Westminster, and also add the University Endowment Lands which are not part of the City of Vancouver, we get a population of 905,000 in a land area of 236 sq. km and a population density of 3,842 per sq. km, which already brings it below the City of Toronto.

The former municipalities of Toronto, York and East York has a population of 985,000 in a land area of 141 sq. km, or 6,963 per sq. km. That's more than either Vancouver alone or Vancouver, UBC and its oldest, densest suburbs.

And in fact, a lot of Burnaby, New Westminster and even southeastern Vancouver is postwar suburbia, so it we add in North York, which is the most "urban" of the postwar suburbs and gives us a pretty nicely defined area south of Steeles between the Humber River and Victoria Park. North York has a land area of 177 sq. km, which means it constitutes a majority of this defined area. It has a population of 1,642,000 in 318 sq. km, and a population density of 5,155 per sq. km. The city of Vancouver barely comes out ahead in density, but in a much smaller land area.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Here's the link again:


http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/access-to-nature.aspx

Right...and what does it say...."23,400 new trees planted since 2010"
The 10 year goal is to plant a total of 150,000 new trees by 2020.

Toronto has been planting an average of 110,000 trees and intends to double it.

So....
City-wide, Toronto has a tree canopy coverage of 28%, with a goal of 40%, and Vancouver has a city-wide canopy of 18%, with a goal of 20% by 2035.
Toronto has a downtown tree canopy coverage of between 8 & 44%, while downtown Vancouver is at 8.3%

I don't see how Vancouver is where Toronto should be getting any inspiration, since it's clearly lagging Toronto.

 

[King of Kensington]

But why would you compare the current City of Vancouver to the old City of Toronto? Just because it favours your stance?

Because we should be comparing apples to apples.

I can respond to your comment “South of 16th Avenue Vancouver feels pretty suburban in character” by saying that you should not look past the old City of Vancouver boundary .

If you want to calculate that area's population, land area and density, go ahead.

Most cities grow through amalgamation. Sometimes it happens more than once. Sometimes amalgamated ares demerge (e.g., Montreal). How far in history do we go back? What’s the point of comparing population density then?

Vancouver hasn't expanded its land area since 1929.

That's why it makes sense to compare the current City of Vancouver to the current City of Toronto. While every inch of Vancouver is not denser than every inch of Toronto, Vancouver overall has a considerably higher population density. Like it or not, the Toronto neighbourhoods with lower density are now parts of Toronto (the same is true for other cities)!

So what? What does "density" in 115 sq. km teach us about adding density in a 630 sq. km area?

White Rock is part of the Vancouver CMA and it will be at the outer edge.

White Rock has about 20,000 people. Brampton has over 500,000. Complete apples and oranges comparison.

 

[King of Kensington]

Vancouver is denser than London!

London

Population: 8,204,100
Land area: 1,572 sq. km
Density: 5,218 per sq. km

Vancouver

Population: 603,502
Land area: 115 sq. km
Density: 5,249 per sq. km

 

[nfitz]

Take the most downtown Vancouver federal electoral riding and compare that to the most downtown Toronto electoral riding. I'd guess Toronto would be ahead. Then look at the next densest, etc. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal beats Toronto, as it traditionally WAS denser than Toronto, before the condo boom.

I couldn't resist. I searched a bit, and then realised it was right on the 2011 census site - sorted by density! http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...able-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=501&SR=1&S=10&O=D

Not surprisingly, the 2 most densest ridings are in Montreal. Then, Toronto Centre, and Vancouver Centre.

The 20 most dense ridings are all in Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. 10 in Montreal, 7 in Toronto, and 3 in Vancouver.

The top 32 ridings are all in the GTA, Montreal area, or Vancouver (33 is Ottawa Centre). Of the top 32, 15 are in/near Toronto, 13 are in/near Montreal, and 4 are in Vancouver.

I really can't see any definition of how Vancouver would be denser than Toronto. Though it's no secret that Montreal was always denser than Toronto.

 

[King of Kensington]

The downtown area of Toronto runs through 2 ridings, Toronto Centre and Trinity-Spadina, so perhaps you can say downtown itself it's a draw or pretty close. But in Vancouver, you can really see how quickly density drops off outside the Downtown Peninsula while Toronto has a lot more non-downtown inner city urban density. Davenport and Parkdale-High Park for instance are significantly denser than Vancouver East and Vancouver-Kingsway.

 

[Ayan]

Right...and what does it say...."23,400 new trees planted since 2010"
The 10 year goal is to plant a total of 150,000 new trees by 2020.

Toronto has been planting an average of 110,000 trees and intends to double it.

So....
City-wide, Toronto has a tree canopy coverage of 28%, with a goal of 40%, and Vancouver has a city-wide canopy of 18%, with a goal of 20% by 2035.
Toronto has a downtown tree canopy coverage of between 8 & 44%, while downtown Vancouver is at 8.3%

I don't see how Vancouver is where Toronto should be getting any inspiration, since it's clearly lagging Toronto.

I looked at the table where “23,400 trees†is in the 2013 column and misinterpreted the data. I acknowledge that you are right – 23,400 trees were planted since 2010.

However, as I noted before (post #198), there are MULTIPLE features that make downtown Vancouver considerably greener than downtown Toronto.

 

[King of Kensington]

I decided to answer the question of whether Vancouver north of 16th St. only is denser than Old Toronto, since that area is included in 2 ridings, Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East.

Population: 247,066
Land area: 36.6 sq. km
Density: 6,750 per sq. km

Old Toronto

Population: 736,775
Land area: 97.15 sq. km
Density: 7,584 per sq. km

Unfortunately for Ayan this measure doesn't put Vancouver ahead either.

 

[Ayan]

If you want to calculate that area's population, land area and density, go ahead.



So what? What does "density" in 115 sq. km teach us about adding density in a 630 sq. km area?

My point is that you can't arbitrarily choose land area when calculating density and claim it's an apple to apple comparison. It makes more sense to compare the current City of Vancouver to the current City of Toronto.

As for whether Vancouver's density can teach you anything, perhaps you can start here:


http://www.thestar.com/news/2008/06/14/want_a_new_urban_model_go_west.html

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/vancouverism-five-part-series-beginning-wednesday

 

[King of Kensington]

^ Not quite accurate. Vancouver annexed 2 suburbs, Point Grey and South Vancouver, in 1929. The area north of 16th west of Kitsilano, West Point Grey, was also annexed that year as well and falls in the riding of Vancouver Quadra. All of Vancouver prior to this annexation falls in 2 ridings.

 

[King of Kensington]

My point is that you can't arbitrarily choose land area when calculating density and claim it's an apple to apple comparison. It makes more sense to compare the current City of Vancouver to the current City of Toronto.

So if Vancouver annexed Burnaby, New Westminster and the University Endowment Lands tomorrow, would you start crowing how Toronto is denser than Vancouver?

As for whether Vancouver's density can teach you anything, perhaps you can start here:


http://www.thestar.com/news/2008/06/14/want_a_new_urban_model_go_west.html

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/vancouverism-five-part-series-beginning-wednesday

We can always learn from other places, including Vancouver. They've done a better job with bike lanes and green roofs than we have. But your argument that Vancouver is denser and more urban than Toronto is just absurd.

 

[Ayan]

I decided to answer the question of whether Vancouver north of 16th St. only is denser than Old Toronto, since that area is included in 2 ridings, Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East.

Population: 247,066
Land area: 36.6 sq. km
Density: 6,750 per sq. km

Old Toronto

Population: 736,775
Land area: 97.15 sq. km
Density: 7,584 per sq. km

Unfortunately for Ayan this measure doesn't put Vancouver ahead either.

Nice try but you are twisting my words.

This is what I said:

I can respond to your comment “South of 16th Avenue Vancouver feels pretty suburban in character†by saying that you should not look past the old City of Vancouver boundary .

How did you interpret that as “the question of whether Vancouver north of 16th St. only is denser than Old Toronto�

My point was that old Vancouver density would be higher than new Vancouver (as you claimed the same for Toronto), which is true.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I looked at the table where “23,400 trees” is in the 2013 column and misinterpreted the data. I acknowledge that you are right – 23,400 trees were planted since 2010.

However, as I noted before (post #198), there are MULTIPLE features that make downtown Vancouver considerably greener than downtown Toronto.

Except:

A: Some of those things don't pertain to the specific version of downtown Vancouver you presented. You gave us a link...it has a map with specific boundaries. Stick to it.
B: It doesn't matter, as none of those things you presented is evidence that it isn't also happening in downtown Toronto.

 

[Ayan]

So if Vancouver annexed Burnaby, New Westminster and the University Endowment Lands tomorrow, would you start crowing how Toronto is denser than Vancouver?


We can always learn from other places, including Vancouver. They've done a better job with bike lanes and green roofs than we have. But your argument that Vancouver is denser and more urban than Toronto is just absurd.

As I said, I would use current city boundaries. That's how comparisons are made.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=307&SR=1&S=10&O=D

Average real estate prices in Vancouver are higher than in Toronto. No one in their right mind would pick the most expensive Toronto neighbourhood to dispute that. That's not how comparisons are made.